Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Factory Accidents

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Labour, having regard to an increase of 5,400 factory accidents in 1959 over 1958, an increase of 11 per cent. or 14,000 accidents in the first nine months of 1960 over the corresponding period of 1959, and an increase of 14 per cent. or 72 fatal accidents in the same period, what steps he now proposes to take to remedy and reverse this adverse trend in industrial safety matters; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): Yes, Sir. Provisional figures now available show that in all premises covered by the Factories Act there were 190,000 reported accidents in 1960, of which 665 were fatal. Final conclusions about this serious increase over the previous year must await the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1960, which will contain detailed analyses of accidents and comparisons with previous years, but meanwhile every effort is made to make people more safety conscious.

Mr. Nabarro: These are grave figures. Could my right hon. Friend say what is the loss in terms of national wealth and resources from this huge number of industrial accidents, and what is the aggregation of the man-days lost as a result of them?

Mr. Hare: It is difficult to give an accurate answer because estimates vary so. The best I can do is to give my hon. Friend the figures produced by the

British Productivity Council. It estimates that industrial accidents are responsible for a loss of 19 million man-days and about £100 million in lost pro-. duction each year.

Mr. Prentice: Is it not significant that the 1959 Report of the Factory Inspectorate also showed that less than half the factories were visited by the Inspectorate during 1959? Does not this confirm what has often been said from this side of the House, that the Inspectorate should be much larger so that it can pay more frequent visits?

Mr. Hare: The Inspectorate has an important part to play, and it has been increased. But I am certain that it is the efforts of the employers and the trade unions,plus a generally increasing awareness by the public that it must become more safety-conscious, that will reduce accidents.

School Leavers

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Labour how many school leavers, boys and girls, have registered for employment and failed to find it, at the latest convenient date; and what plans he has for finding employment for them.

Mr. Hare: On 13th February, 1,884 boys and 1,224 girls. The Youth Employment Service is helping them to find employment as soon as possible.

Mr. Owen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that increasing numbers of school leavers are still waiting for employment and that we are now approaching the major impact of the bulge? What steps is he taking to institute more effective action to ensure that employment is secured for these young people? Is he not aware that this great potential reservoir of labour is vital to our economy?

Mr. Hare: I am aware of that, but I think that the hon. Gentleman has this wrong. There is nothing to be complacent about in these figures, but the position is a good deal better than it was last year. We are making progress. Today, there are five vacancies for each boy unemployed, compared with last year's figure of three vacancies for every unemployed boy. Therefore, although I agree about the importance of seeing that


these young people are placed in jobs, I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentlemen that things are considerably better than they were a year ago.

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Labour what special steps he proposes to take to find employment for boys leaving school in Edinburgh during the next few years.

Mr. Oswald: asked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated increase for 1962 over 1960 in the number of youths under 18 years of age who will be leaving school in the city of Edinburgh in search of jobs; and what special steps are being taken to ensure that there will be an appropriate increase in the number of jobs available.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): In Edinburgh, there are expected to be about 950 more boys leaving school and seeking employment in 1962 than in 1960. Employment prospects for boys in Edinburgh are at present fairly good, and I hope that they will remain so.

Mr. Willis: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his youth employment officer in Edinburgh does not seem to agree with him, because that officer has said that there will be a great deal of unemployment among boys next year and that the high level of unemployment will continue for at least four years? What does the hon. Gentleman intend to do about that?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think that the figures available to me warrant undue pessimism about the situation in Edinburgh. The employment situation for boys in Edinburgh is much better than it is in Scotland generally.

Mr. Willis: That is not much.

Mr. Thomas: It approximates to the average situation in Great Britain as a whole. There are three times the number of vacancies as there are boys unemployed in Edinburgh and there is no unemployment problem for girls.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated increase for 1962 over 1960 in the number of youths in Lanarkshire leaving school in search of employment and what special steps are being taken to ensure that such employment will be available.

Mr. P. Thomas: Approximately 1,100. The employment situation for boys in Lanarkshire has improved over the past year, and finding work for these additional school leavers should not present serious difficulties. The Northern part of the county is a development district under the Local Employment Act

Mr. Lawson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that represents about one-third increase in 1962 compared with 1960? Is he aware that unless special measures, of which there is no sign at present, are taken, a substantial number of that increase—and this applies to youths generally—must be without employment in their own area?

Mr. Thomas: I agree that it is a big increase, but I do not agree that there are no prospects at the moment. About 4,000 jobs are in prospect in Lanarkshire.

Mr. Steele: We are always being told about jobs in prospect, but we want jobs on the spot. The Minister has already said that there are five vacancies for every boy unemployed in England and we have been told that there are three jobs for every unemployed boy in Edinburgh. What is the position for Scotland? How many vacancies per unemployed boy do we have? Is not the ratio the other way round?

Mr. Thomas: Without notice, I cannot give the exact answer. I agree that there are not as many vacancies as there are boys unemployed in the Lanarkshire area, but the improvement over the last year has been considerable. In February, 1960, 571 boys in the Lanarkshire area were unemployed while the number today is 225, so there has been a considerable improvement and the prospects are better than they were.

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated increase for 1962 over 1960 in the number of youths under 18 years of age who will be leaving school in Ayrshire in search of employment; and what special steps are being taken to ensure that there will be an appropriate increase in the number of jobs for youths available.

Mr. P. Thomas: Approximately 700. Employment prospects for boys have


improved over the past year, and the absorption of the extra school leavers into employment should not present serious difficulties. Various parts of the county are development districts under the Local Employment Act.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that only a small part of the county is within the development area? Will he attend to the needs of those youths who are unemployed in areas outwith those in which help can be obtained?

Mr. Thomas: Certainly. My Department intends to pay every attention to youth in every part of Britain in an attempt to see that they are properly and fully employed. The increase can be put in its proper perspective when it is understood that, although it may appear proportionately to be rather larger, it represents about 1 per cent., and in many cases much less than 1 per cent., of the total labour force. There should be no difficulty in absorbing that percentage into employment.

Disabled Persons, Hartlepools

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of semi-disabled and disabled persons at present unemployed in The Hartlepools.

Mr. P. Thomas: On 20th February, 149 registered disabled persons were unemployed, including 12 severely disabled persons considered to need employment under sheltered conditions.

Commander Kerans: Will my hon. Friend give consideration to increasing the size of the Remploy factory in my constituency, where there is ample space? We could then absorb these disabled persons.

Mr. Thomas: The Remploy factory in my hon. and gallant Friend's constituency took on six severely disabled workers during the last twelve months. There are at present eleven men and one woman registered as unemployed under Section 2—that is to say, they are severely disabled workers. All the men have been interviewed for employment by Remploy, some of them more than

once. Unfortunately, they were found unsuitable for the particular work which Remploy was able to provide.

Building and Civil Engineering (Accidents)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour how many new schemes for training young persons in safety measures have been started in the building and civil engineering industries since the issue of Command Paper No. 953 in February, 1960.

Mr. Hare: There were fewer accidents of this kind in 1959 than in 1958. Until the analysis of the 1960 figures is complete I cannot say whether the improvement has been maintained.

Mr. Boyden: While that represents some progress, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a very much greater effort is needed? This Report said that there was not a large number of schemes to cope with safety for young people. With the bulge problem this becomes even more important. What steps has he taken in the matter?

Mr. Hare: I am not disagreeing with the hon. Member. We must call the attention as much as possible of both the young and the old in industry to the need for safety consciousness. The safety aspect is dealt with in certain technical schools, and I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to see whether in the schools and technical institutes it would be possible to stress this even more than now.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour whether the increase in accidents resulting from stepping on and striking against protruding nails and other objects in the building and civil engineering industries has now been checked; and if he will give the number of such accidents in 1960.

Mr. Prentice: On a point of order. I think the Minister gave the answer to Question No. S when he was replying to Question No. 4. I think this matter needs a little sorting out.

Mr. Speaker: The present Question is No. 5, not No. 4.

Mr. Hare: I have just answered No. 5, but as the subject is very close to that


raised in this Question, I can say that safety training for young people normally forms part of their general training. This subject is figuring in such training to an increasing extent.

Mr. Boyden: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for Question No. 5?

Mr. Hare: When the figures are available, I will see that the hon. Gentleman has them.

Youths, Scotland

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour what was the net increase in the number of youths under 18 years of age employed in the county of Lanark in 1960 as compared with 1957.

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Labour what was the net increase in the number of youths under 18 years of age employed in Scotland in 1960 as compared with 1957.

Mr. T. Steele: asked the Minister of Labour what was the net increase in the number of youths under 18 years of age employed in the county of Dunbar-ton in 1960 as compared with 1957.

Mr. Hannan: asked the Minister of Labour what was the net increase in the number of youths under 18 years of age employed in the city of Glasgow in 1960 as compared with 1957.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Labour what was the net increase in the number of youths under 18 years of age employed in the county of Ayr in 1960 as compared with 1957.

Mr. Oswald: asked the Minister of Labour what was the net increase in the number of jobs for youths under 18 years of age in the city of Edinburgh during the period from 1957 to 1960.

Mr. Hare: About 1,000 boys in Scotland. The figures for Ayrshire, Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Lanarkshire are not yet available. I hope to have them next month and I will communicate them to the hon. Members.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that 1,000 more jobs for youngsters in Scotland is a negligible increase over

three years? What indication does that hold out that by 1962, when the number of youngsters looking for work will have increased by one-third, there will be any prospect of their finding employment?

Mr. Hare: As I have said, there has been an improvement. The Government are well aware of the difficulties in Scotland, and every effort will be made to see that jobs are made available for these young people when they seek work in the years to come.

Mr. Steele: Surely the answer to this Question shows that the optimism of the Government on previous Questions was complete and utter nonsense. If over the past three years there have been only 1,000 additional new jobs for youths in Scotland, how can we look forward with any optimism to the years ahead, when the numbers leaving school will have increased by one-third?

Mr. Hare: As the hon. Member knows, I am glad to say that many extra available jobs are in prospect in Scotland.

Mr. Steele: In prospect?

Mr. Hare: Yes, but already there has been an improvement. Hon. Members have to be fair about this. There has been a definite improvement of employment for boys, because in February, 1960, the number of boys unemployed was 4,214, whereas in February, this year, the number was 2,414.

Mr. Willis: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that 2,000 boys unemployed is still far too many, particularly in view of the numbers coming forward in 1962–63? While we are pleased to have the general sympathy and interest of the Government, is he not aware that what we need is a little action?

Mr. Hare: Of course, it is serious that there should be 2,414 boys unemployed, but that is considerably better than 4,214 unemployed, which was the story 12 months ago. I hope that these extra jobs will be available to meet the extra demand when more boys become available for employment.

Mr. Hannan: Is the Minister aware that there is no consolation in these figures for Scottish Members? Is he aware that in Glasgow alone the number


leaving school in 1962 will be 20,000, which is 25 per cent. more than in 1957? Does not that situation call for some dramatic effort on his part to provide the jobs necessary? When will the figures for Glasgow and other areas be available?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member could not have heard me when I said that I would try to make them available next month. I have said that Scotland has a special problem and that I am particularly anxious to see that jobs which are in the pipeline will be available for these boys when the time comes.

Mr. Manuel: I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's figures. If he says that there are now only 1,000 more jobs available and last February more than 4,000 youths were unemployed and today about 2,000 are unemployed, then there is something wrong with his figures. Would he not agree that he must be concerned with the bulge year, 1962. when we will have approximately 25 per cent. more school leavers? Will he explore the position of the lack of apprenticeships for young people, which is the core of the matter, and consult his right hon. Friends to see that more youths are absorbed into proper apprenticeships instead of into dead-end jobs, coming on to the labour market again in a year or so?

Mr. Hare: I do not disagree with much of what the hon. Member has said. I hope that when the figures are published he will find that there has been an increase in the number of apprenticeships. I hope that he will do all he can, as I will, with employers and trade unions in this matter. We have to see that as many apprenticeships as possible are made available to boys in the coming years.

Mr. Brewis: Can my right hon. Friend say how many jobs are in the pipeline in Scotland, and does he not agree that many of them will provide employment opportunities for boys?

Mr. Hare: There are approximately 24,000 jobs in the pipeline. It is no use hon. Members opposite scoffing at that figure. They come from Scotland, and they must appreciate how much improvement has been brought about by

the diversification of industry now taking place in Scotland. If that diversification had not occurred, things would be much worse than they now are.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are getting a bit tired of this pipeline? His hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) can tell us that there used to be jobs in the pipeline at Cairnryan but that there is now no pipeline there. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the position in Scotland is difficult and that Scotland has a special problem. Does he appreciate the effect of the 30 per cent. increase in school leavers on that problem, and is he aware that the Government appear to have no policy to meet that great need?

Mr. Hare: I am aware of many of the facts, and I hope to be visiting Scotland within the next two weeks, when I shall be able to refresh myself with information on the spot. It is not right for hon. Members to say that they are not interested in jobs in the pipeline, because jobs from the pipeline have already materialised and many more will do so.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from the areas which we are now discussing come many of Britain's finest craftsmen, especially those in heavy engineering? Is he aware that we know from his answers last week that as the bulge has increased the percentage going into apprenticeships has dropped rapidly? Will he take particular note of what my hon. Friends have been saying—that it is not a question only of getting the boys into jobs, but getting them into jobs which will eventually produce the same type of craftsmen which we have had from these areas in Scotland in the past?

Mr. Hare: I hope that when the figures are available it will be seen that the hon. Member is wrong when he says that the percentage of boys going into apprenticeships has dropped, I do not believe that it has—I am now talking about last year's figure compared with that of 1959. I hope that there has been an improvement. We all agree that there must be more apprenticeships for these boys, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will use all their influence in that respect, as I certainly shall.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Admiralty Headquarters Organisation (Report)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (1) what reexamination of the size and composition of Naval Staff Divisions has taken place pursuant to Recommendation 13 of the First Report of the Select Committee on Estimates of last Session;
(2) what has been done to implement Recommendation 9 of the First Report of the Select Committee on Estimates of last Session, that further consideration should be given to the size, experience, and terms of reference of the Organisation and Methods Branch of the Admiralty Secretariat.

Mr. Wilkins: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what has been done to implement Recommendation 7 of the First Report of the Select Committee on Estimates of last Session that the tours of duty of senior naval officers at headquarters should be extended.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): I would refer the hon. Members to the statements I made in columns 1320 and 1323 of HANSARD of 14th February when replying to the recent debate on Admiralty Headquarters Organisation.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister take into account the fact that the observations of the Admiralty and the Treasury and his speech of 14th February were very evasive, whereas the Select Committee on Estimates made precise recommendations on what ought to be done? When will he be in a position to be equally precise on the savings to be effected in every sphere?

Mr. On-Ewing: I ask the hon. Member to re-read what I said. We had already taken some action and I undertook, in concluding that debate, to take a good deal more action. We are pressing on with it. We take very seriously the criticism which has been made, and I am sure that we shall achieve our target of cutting 500 further people out of the Admiralty headquarters organisation in the next five years.

Mr. Paget: I read what the hon. Member said and I re-read it this morning. His speech contained a lot of

aspirations but very little performance. When can we put down another Question and be told of some performance? On consideration, does he feel that an Organisation and Methods Branch temporarily drawn from a Department and going back into other divisions is much use? Ought there not to be efficiency experts from outside?

Mr. On-Ewing: We considered bringing in outside efficiency experts, but we came to the conclusion that it was better to strengthen that department. We raised the seniority of the people employed there, and we have said that we will employ people in the Organisation and Methods Department for a longer period.

National Insurance (Graduated Pensions Scheme)

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what decision has been taken with regard to participation by personnel of the Royal Navy in the National Insurance graduated pensions scheme.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: We informed the Registrar of Non-Participating Employments that we elect to contract out those officers and ratings who will qualify for retired pay or pensions. All other Royal Navy personnel will participate in the scheme.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: What will be the position with regard to those officers and men who leave the Service, for one reason or another, before they have become eligible for naval pension?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: My hon. and gallant Friend is presumably referring to the possibility of transferring rights for those who contracted out of the scheme. There are three different ways of undertaking this. First, it could be done by way of a frozen pension, in which case the man would not get his pension until he was 65; secondly, by way of transfer of rights to another contracted-out scheme; and lastly, by a payment in lieu into the National Insurance Fund. We intend to use this last method.

Welsh Ports (Ships' Visits)

Mr. Gower: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will give details of Her Majesty's ships which will visit Welsh ports this year.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Subject to operational requirements arrangements have so far been made for eight ships to make eleven separate visits to seven Welsh Ports. I Will, With Permission, circulate particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It may be possible to arrange for additional visits later.

Mr. Gower: In Particular, Will any ship or ships visit Barry?

Port
Name and Class of Ship
Complement(Approximate)
Date of Visit 







Officers
Ratings



Cardiff 
…
Scotsman
…
Submarine
5
32
17th-22nd March




Teazer
…
Frigate
18
144
25th-28th May




Artful
…
Submarine
5
58
30th June-3rd July


Fishguard
…
St. David
…
Coastal Mine sweepers
12
60
1st-2nd April




Mersey
…
Coastal Mine-sweepers





Holyhead
…
Mersey
…
Coastal Mine sweeper
12
60
3rd-4th March









Ilth-12th March









29th-30th April


Llandudno
…
Mersey
…
Coastal Mine sweeper
12
60
22nd-23rd April


Rhyl
…
Rhyl
…
Frigate 
9
190
25th-30th August


Swansea
…
Murray
…
Frigate
7
98
26th-29th May


Tenby 
…
Tenby
…
Frigate 
9
190
4th-9th July

Foreign Ports (Courtesy Calls)

Mr. Paget: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether in future, he will ensure that Her Majesty's ships refrain from making courtesy calls unless the Admiralty can be assured that discrimination on the grounds of colour will not be imposed on sailors wearing the uniform of the Royal Navy; and whether he will issue a list of those ports at which such discrimination is imposed.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I have nothing to add to the answers given on 7th February by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister then said that this matter was under consideration? Has further consideration taken place? Are we to go on removing or adjusting ship's company in order to fit in with apartheid?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: My right hon. Friend said on that occasion that on each future occasion the decision would be taken in the light of the circumstances. I have undertaken to do that.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Barry was exceptionally fortunate last year in that the "Dainty" and the "Chaplet" paid separate visits. I am afraid that we have had to exclude Barry this year, but perhaps later Barry may be lucky again.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will the Civil Lord see that the ships are suitably adorned in leeks on this occasion?

Following is the information:

Mr. Foot: Does not the Minister realise that that answer is quite unsatisfactory to the House and that it does not accord at all with the principles of racial equality in which the House claims to believe? Does he think that we should be content with the answer which he has given?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I remind the House that this ship, the "Victorious", was on her way to join the Far East Fleet. On her way she exercised with the South African Navy, and on her way she paid a visit to South African ports. The main matter which we have to consider is that this is an extremely important strategic route, and we must go on paying visits and exercising with the South African Navy if we are to keep that route open for troubled times.

Mr. Dugdale: Will not the Minister consider giving instructions to Her Majesty's ships that they do not enter any port on a courtesy call unless the people in that port will treat the officers and ratings of all ranks and all colours


with as much courtesy as they receive from them?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said. He dealt fully with this.

South Africa (Visit of H.M.S. "Victorious")

Mr. Grimond: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why the Marine band from H.M.S. "Victorious" gave a performance at Capetown from which all non-whites were turned away.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The performance was a private engagement, under Q.R. and A.I., article 3957, at a function organised by the Capetown Branch of the Royal Naval Association. It was accepted because of the close link between the Royal Navy and the Royal Naval Association.

Mr. Grimond: The Minister and the Prime Minister appear to be quite misinformed about this. I have here the advertisement of a cinema performance, to be followed by the Royal Marines Military Band from H.M.S. "Victorious". [HON. MEMBERS: "What date?" I It is of 21st February. There is no mention of any private performance. I have a cutting from the Cape Times of the next day which reads,
An inter-racial party of 10 men and women were refused entrance to the Colosseum in Cape Town last night after they had reserved tickets
This must be a different performance. There is nothing in this public advertisement to indicate that it was a private performance.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member by giving the definition from Q.R. and A.I. It is difficult to carry the book around with one. Queen's Regulations define private engagements as those which a band may be allowed to undertake, subject to the exigencies of the Service, at the request of civilian organisations. The rules are that the fees to be charged shall be not less than civilian rates; that all expenses are paid by the organisers; and that ranks are not on duty except for disciplinary purposes. It was in that sense that I used

the term "private", and I am sure that my right hon. Friend did the same. I am not aware of the conditions in any cinema. This was an engagement conscientiously entered into and, as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, it was followed by the public engagement, a vast engagement, with 5,000 people present, which was open to both white and coloured people.

Mr. Paget: How could we better illustrate why our ships should not place themselves in this sort of situation? What is the point of quibbling about "private" and "public"? This is our ship and our band, and racial discrimination was applied with all that sort of unpleasantness—and we are involved in it. Why do we do it?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot get away from the fact that this is an extremely important strategic route for the British Commonwealth. It is that which dictates our visit to the Cape, not apartheid.

Mr. Strachey: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the Fleet can do far more for the Commonwealth by standing out against racial discrimination than any of these visits can possibly do?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Prime Minister has made it clear where Britain stands on this issue. If the right hon. Member refers to The Times he will see another very interesting letter today on that very issue.

Mr. G. R. Howard: In view of the disproportionate publicity which such Questions in the House can have throughout the world, why was H.M.S. "Victorious" sent into South African waters?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: First, the ship had to get to the Far East. She had to go either through the Suez Canal or round South Africa. We are under an obligation under the Simonstown agreement to provide exercises for the South African Navy. We carried out that obligation. That was why she went round South Africa. While she was going round, and while exercising, she also took the opportunity of paying a visit. On the whole, this was a tremendous success and created a great deal of friendship.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that the report to which the Leader of


the Liberal Party referred relates not to a private performance but to a public performance at an ordinary cinema? Will he explain why at a public performance, at which the band of H.M.S. "Victorious" played, people who had bought tickets—some of the people coloured—were prevented from gaining entrance. Will he reply to that question?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have already dealt with that question.

Mr. Grimond: May I press the hon. Gentleman on this? The Prime Minister said yesterday that this was by invitation of the Royal Naval Association of South Africa and that the people refused permission were not members. This is advertised along with a public cinema performance, the same audience being present at both. There is no mention of the Royal Naval Association of South Africa. Furthermore, tickets were sold to these people. Is it supposed that they sold tickets to people who were not members of the Association?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot be responsible for what a person puts in an advertisement. The facts are that the invitation came to "Victorious" through the Royal Naval Association, Cape Town Branch, and that is what I have said and what the Prime Minister himself stated.

Mr. Nabarro: Tell him you are not the advertiser.

S. S. "West Breeze" (Interception)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the result of his inquiries into the incident in which the British ship "West Breeze" was arrested by French warships; and whether this took place in territorial waters.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 27th February. At the time of the interception the ship was in international waters between Algiers and Spain.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have that Answer in front of me and that it is wholly unsatisfactory? Why is it that no repre-

sentations have been made to the French although this incident took place nearly a week ago? Are we going to allow British ships to be interfered with in this way, and what arrangements is he making for protection to be afforded to our ships?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: As my hon. Friend, I think wisely, made it clear in answer to a Private Notice Question, we could not go any further until we had the full facts before us. Perhaps it would help the House and the hon. Gentleman if I explained the ownership of this ship and under whose charter she was at the time. She is owned by Northern Enterprises Ltd., Hong Kong. She is managed by John Manners and Co. Ltd., Hong Kong. At the time of the incident she was under charter to Far Eastern Enterprises and Co., and that company had sublet her under another charter to "Sino-Fracht", a Chinese Communist organisation.

Mr. Nabarro: Up the Commies.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that we are recognising the Peking regime? We have diplomatic relations with that regime, and surely we can expect our warships and our authorities to give protection to a British ship? Does the Minister now indicate that if a British ship is under charter to an organsation of which he does not himself approve, we cannot afford it protection?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was not expressing either approval or disapproval. I was giving the facts. I thought the hon. Gentleman might like to know more facts. We are trying to obtain more facts about this incident, and when we have them no doubt my hon. Friend will consider his position.

Service Afloat

Mr. Rankin: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many men are serving afloat in the operational fleet, in ships engaged on trials and training, and in fleet support auxiliaries, respectively; and what percentage of total naval personnel each of these figures represents.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: At the 1st October, 1960, the figures were 31,400 in


the operational fleet; 3,400 in ships engaged on trials and training; and 4,200 in fleet support and auxiliary vessels. They represent 32 per cent., 3 per cent. and 4 per cent., respectively, of total naval personnel. The figures do not include civilian crews of Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and other support vessels, nor do they include operational units of the Fleet Air Arm and Royal Marine Commandos not actually embarked.

Mr. Rankin: Keeping to the Question as put, do those figures not show that only about 40 per cent. of the Navy is in ships at sea and 60 per cent. is on land? Is not that rather a strange state of affairs in view of the wide commitments which the Navy has in distant parts of the world, about which we heard so much on Monday and Tuesday? How is the Navy to fulfil its commitments when the great mass of its personnel is on land in this country?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: These figures do not take into account another 3,000 personnel in the Royal Marine Commandos and the Fleet Air Arm. They are the sharp end, the teeth units. It would be fair to consider them amongst the Fleet. The hon. Gentleman is right. We have done our best to close a large number of shore establishments and we are continuing with this to get the maximum amount of teeth and the minimum amount of tail.

Polaris Submarines

Mr. Rankin: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when he expects that the Polaris submarines will arrive in the Holy Loch.

Mr. C. Ian Qrr-Ewing: I cannot disclose the movements of this important component of the Western deterrent. I think the operational reasons are obvious.

Mr. Rankin: How could the movement of Proteus, the feeder ship, be disclosed? Would it be true to say that really the hon. Gentleman knows as much about the movements of the Polaris submarine as he knew about the movement of Proteus? This alliance is not so close as we were told during Monday and Tuesday. Will he consider coming clean and telling us exactly what he knows

about the movement of the Polaris submarine? When will it arrive in the Clyde? Surely he knows that.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not know, and if I did know I would not tell the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker: Commander Courtney.

Mr. Paget: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I called the next Question, having heard the ground of refusal.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely when the Minister in charge of this tremendously important Department knows nothing about the movement of ships like the Polaris submarine we are entitled to take the question further?

Mr. Speaker: I took the view not. I called the next Question.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Speaker, surely this is a highly important question. I do not know whether you recollect, but the main case which we made with regard to this Polaris base was the great danger to security. Now we are told that far security reasons we must not be told of ships coming to where everybody sees them.

Mr. Speaker: I meant no discourtesy or any denial of the importance, but the rule is that if a Minister says that he will not answer on security grounds, that is a permitted ground of refusal. It was for that reason and no other that I called the next Question, and I am afraid that I must persist in what I. said.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Orders

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will advance the placing of orders in respect of the shipbuilding programme in order to dispel the uncertainties facing all those engaged in the industry.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The naval shipbuilding programme is so phased as to give the most efficient Fleet within the Admiralty's available resources. I regret, therefore, that within these resources I cannot advance the placing of orders for new construction.

Mr. Woodnutt: Will not the Minister agree that if he could plan over two, three or even four years, it would not only assist his Department but would remove a lot of uncertainty which exists in the industry about its future? If it would help him, would it be a good idea for me to put down a Question on the subject to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: In yesterday's debate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence made it clear that we were planning our defence orders up to five years ahead. I point out to my hon. Friend that although we put 90 per cent. of our shipbuilding orders out to commercial yards, this employs only 8 per cent. of the people in the shipbuilding industry, and even a considerable acceleration in our programme will not solve the problem facing the shipbuilding industry.

Shipbuilding Yards, Isle of Wight

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the proposed redundancies at J. Samuel White's shipbuilding yards at Cowes, Isle of Wight, what further work his Department intends placing with the company.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: As announced in the Navy Estimates debate last year, the Admiralty intend that as many as possible of our new ships should be ordered as a result of competitive tendering. Messrs. J. S. White will be invited to tender for all Her Majesty's ships for which they have the necessary facilities.

Mr. Woodnutt: While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that unless J. Samuel White on the Isle of Wight receive further orders, no fewer than 1,000 men will be made redundant by the end of this year? As there are only 30,000 employed people on the Isle of Wight, it means more than 3 per cent., and as the unemployment percentage is already 4·6 per cent., it will bring us up to the highest in the country, apart from Northern Ireland? In view of the high quality of the work of J. Samuel White's yards and the fact that the frigate which the firm is to launch on 20th March is of the highest quality and lowest price in its batch, will my hon. Friend see

that a special effort is made to provide more work for that firm?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I realise those facts. I hope that my hon. Friend will urge the firm to put in as keenly competitive a tender as it possibly can. Maybe it will then get the next order

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Training Area, Westward Ho

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Secretary of State for War what future use the Army intends to make of Westward Ho as a training area for amphibious vehicles.

The Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary for War (Mr. James Ramsden): We shall continue to need the use of the beach at Westward Ho for training drivers of amphibious vehicles but they will approach from the sea only.

Mr. Browne: Will my hon. Friend reconsider this? Does he think it is necessary to use a famous holiday resort for training purposes for the Army particularly now that the camp has closed down? Will he in any case see whether he can get the Bailey bridge across the famous little pebbleridge removed because it is doing a great deal of damage to that ridge, which I think will soon be breached by the sea if something is not done?

Mr. Ramsden: As regards the Bailey bridge, that is covered by my Answer to the effect that vehicles will approach the beach only from the sea. As regards the first part of the supplementary question, I am afraid that we shall continue to need this beach for amphibious training.

Supply Depot, Barry

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for War how many established employees and non-established employees, respectively, will be affected under the proposal to close the No. 2 Supply Reserve Depot, Barry, in October, 1963.

Mr. Ramsden: There are at present 214 established and 107 non-established employees serving at No. 2 Supply Reserve Depot, Barry but the numbers


ultimately affected by the closure of the Depot in 1963 are likely to be fewer, since employees who leave will not be replaced

Mr. Gower: In this consideration will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that some of these men, particularly established personnel, have already lost their promotion opportunities through the prior closure three years ago of a technical sub-depot and the closure a year ago of boat stores belonging to his Department? Will he take account of those facts?

Mr. Ramsden: Yes. I understand that my hon. Friend is going to be good enough to bring a deputation to me in the near future to talk about Barry. Perhaps we can pursue this question and others on that occasion.

Service Accommodation, Germany

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers and other ranks, respectively, are serving in Germany accompanied by their wives but not living in Service houses.

Mr. Ramsden: Eight officers and 657 other ranks of those serving in Germany accompanied by their wives are not living In Service accommodation.

Mr. Mason: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how long these 657 other ranks are destined to wait for satisfactory housing conditions in West Germany? Is he aware that a lot of them are living in one-room flats; that they, with their wives and children, have to live, eat and sleep in one room under shocking conditions, details of which I have sent to him? Is he aware that when they report their complaints to Members of Parliament they are being intimidated by the military police?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Ramsden: I cannot accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. If he knows of any such cases I hope he will write to me giving specific details. On the general question, I am aware of the difficulties, and my right hon. Friend will certainly have something to say about the whole matter in his speech on the Army Estimates next week.

Cairnryan Port, Wigtownshire

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for War what consultations his Department had with the British Iron and Steel Corporation before deciding that Mr. H. G. Pounds was the most suitable purchaser to start a ship-breaking industry at Cairnryan Port, Wigtownshire.

Mr. Ramsden: None, Sir.

Mr. Brewis: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the British Iron and Steel Corporation virtually controls that great industry? Is he aware that if he had consulted the Corporation it would have told him that this person was most unlikely to establish a successful ship-breaking venture at Cairnryan Port and has in fact not done so?

Mr. Ramsden: The sale was not conditional on the purchaser using the port for shipbreaking or in any particular way. Quite apart from the difficulties such a condition would have added to the selling the property at all, I am advised that it could not have been effectively enforced in law.

German-Language Courses

Mr. Clive Bossom: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange for British troops stationed in Western Germany to have the teaching of the German language incorporated in their regular training programme.

Mr. Ramsden: No, Sir. British troops serving in Western Germany have every encouragement and facility to learn German. My right hon. Friend, however, does not consider that compulsory courses would achieve results which would justify the cost and effort involved.

Mr. Bossom: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?" I As the people of this country have such a bad reputation for never learning foreign languages, are not we losing an ideal opportunity to arrange for the instruction of our troops who are stationed in Germany for two or three years? Will the Minister make inquiries from the American Seventh Army, which is stationed in Germany, and which has a scheme for having the troops instructed in German for a period of three months?


Would not it be a good thing for us to do the same?

Mr. Ramsden: Regarding my hon. Friend's comparison with what the Americans do, I think it a question of degree. We have classes available, and if he knows of instances where classes are needed I should be glad if he would let me know. We may have a reputation for not being good at learning languages, but I have yet to learn of any British soldier who has not succeeded in making himself understood.

Mr. Shinwell: Would not it be a good idea to teach some American troops how to speak English?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

TSR2 Aircraft

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress is being made in the development of the TSR2 aircraft; to what extent his Department has modified its policy regarding its continuation: and when is the estimated entry of this aircraft into the Royal Air Force.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery): The development of the TSR2 is making good progress. The policy for its introduction has in no way been modified. We expect that it will be ready in the mid-1960s.

Mr. Mason: Does the Secretary of State for Air really think this project is necessary, having in mind the terms of the agreed Defence White Paper that manned aircraft will last only ten years anyway, and this will come out when the reign of the manned bomber is gradually ending? Having in mind also the wide variety of aircraft we have—Lightnings, N.A.39s and Victor bombers—why is it necessary to spend £50 million on this project?

Mr. Amery: I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the White Paper. We do not take the view that the use of manned aircraft will necessarily end in the ten years ahead. After careful study by all the responsible authorities, we do think that there is a need for this aircraft.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the account of the purpose of this aeroplane given yesterday by the

Minister of Defence is in conflict with the account of its purpose given when it was introduced by the then Minister of Supply? Can he account for this sudden change in the purpose of the aircraft?

Mr. Amery: I have not the two texts before me, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will put down a Question I will answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Bus Services, London

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now appoint an independent public inquiry into the failure of the London Transport Executive to provide adequate bus services for the people of London, as requested in the petition containing 145,000 signatures handed to him on 16th December last by the hon. Members for Bermondsey and East Islington.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Since the proposal for another independent public inquiry into London's transport was first put forward, there has been a very substantial improvement in the bus services about which most concern was expressed. Bus manpower has increased by some 1,200 men in the last four months, and three-fifths of the mileage lost for lack of crews has been made good. In these circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the proposed inquiry would not serve any useful purpose at this stage. I shall, however, continue to watch the situation carefully and to encourage all action which will improve conditions, especially in regard to traffic congestion, the rush hour peaks and planning in London.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate that reply; there has been some slight improvement since the petition was launched. But does not the Minister recognise that there is still great dissatisfaction among the London travelling public and the crews of the London buses regarding the administration of the London Transport Executive? In fairness to the bus crews, does not he think that an independent inquiry would produce some useful facts?

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. Action was taken and a tremendous improvement has taken place. I do not think we should have an inquiry at this stage. But if matters were to worsen it might he necessary.

Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister aware that a demand for an inquiry came from the busmen who wish the public to understand that the chaos in London is not the fault of drivers? Is he aware that that is why they want a public inquiry?

Mr. Marples: Local authorities also have passed resolutions, but as the matter is so much better, I do not think we should have an inquiry at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Victoria Line

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to announce a decision to proceed with the proposed new Victoria underground railway to north-east London.

Mr. Marples: I am not yet in a position to add to the Answer my hon. Friend gave to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and other hon. Members on 25th January.

Mr. Fletcher: The Minister has been saying this for several months, and we have been promised a decision for a long time. Congestion in north-east London is getting worse. Can the Minister tell us when we shall get a definite decision about this from the Government?

Mr. Marples: There is a complete reorganisation of the British Transport Commission and its undertakings going on. This project must be considered in the light of that reorganisation and the plan put forward by the Commission for its four-year programme of modernisation.

Mr. Popplewell: In view of the fact that the proposed plan for reorganisation is not likely to be placed before this House for something like two years at least, does that mean that the London/ Victoria tube project will be postponed and it will be two or three years before any decision is reached at all? Surely the Minister is aware of the outstanding

importance of going ahead with this project?

Mr. Marples: No, it does not mean that. The Commission has placed its four-year programme before me. I have asked for more details. This item will be considered in the context of the modernisation proposals.

Mr. G. Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the social value of this project when making a decision, in the same way as has apparently been done in connection with the cost of the motorways?

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Shipping Industry (Discussions)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Transport if he has now considered the proposals submitted to him by British shipping interests; and what conclusions he has reached.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a further statement on his examination of the proposals of the Chamber of Shipping regarding British shipping policy.

Mr. Marples: I held a general preliminary discussion on their proposals with the General Council of British Shipping on 8th February. Since then, there have been further discussions on various specific matters and these discussions are continuing.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman taking a long time to make up his mind about the proposals submitted to him by the Chamber of Shipping and other shipping interests? Does not this delay prove conclusively what I have been saying for a long time, that the right hon. Gentleman has far too much on his plate and should transfer to some other Minister the responsibility for shipping and shipbuilding? Will he convey these views to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?

Mr. Marples: I think the right hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair, which is most unusual for him. The General Council of British Shipping knows its own business best and as well as anyone in this House. It took the Council eighteen


months to formulate the proposals, to which I have replied at once, and we are arranging a method of discussing the proposals and the order of priority attaching to them.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shipping industry shares the views of my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Marples: I did not observe that when its representatives met me on 8th February. 1 particularly brought some pretty specimens of thought from the right hon. Gentleman and some of them were dissented from.

Mr. P. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is joining my "band wagon" at last—thank goodness? Will he therefore recognise that one of the prime problems confronting both the shipping and the shipbuilding industry is one of taxation, and will he take a stand in relation to the Treasury and support the shipping industry in this matter?

Mr. Marples: Matters of taxation are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not for me. I am not the Chancellor. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question. I can assure him that those representations will be made to the Chancellor.

Mr. Hector Hughes: To take only one aspect of the Minister's work to which he seems unable to devote time, what is he doing about flag discrimination, which is referred to in my Question No. 42?

Mr. Marples: I should have been delighted to answer that had the hon. and learned Member been in his place.

Mr. Peyton: Although I certainly would not blame him for taking a long time in looking into this very complicated problem, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware of the fact that many of us feel that this problem has never been looked at at a proper level by Governments, nor for long enough? Without wishing to make gibes or accusations against the Americans, we feel that no one has ever yet from this country put strongly enough to the Americans

the views which we hold, nor done that at the right level. I hope he will be able to do so at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Marples: I think our views on flag discrimination have been very strongly presented to America, but that is another Question and belongs to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). No doubt he will postpone his Question until next week and we shall be able. to deal with it then.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Industrial Relations

Mr. Marsh: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 17th March, I shall call attention to industrial relations in the United Kingdom, and move a Resolution.

Members' Wives and Husbands

Mr. H. Clark: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 17th March, I shall call attention to the privileges extended to wives and husbands of Members of this House, and move a Resolution.

Sport and the Community (Wolfenden Report)

Mr. de Freitas: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 17th March, I shall call attention to the Wolfenden Report on Sport and the Community, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

LEASEHOLD TENURE (WALES)

Bill to make provision for the renewal of long leases of residential property in Wales and Monmouthshire, or for the acquisition of the freehold of such properties by the leaseholders thereof; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Raymond Gower; supported by Mr. Morgan, Mr. Donald Box, and Mr. Hugh Rees; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th April and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT (WALES)

3.34 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the enfranchisement of residential property in Wales and Monmouthshire held under long leases; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid.
Today is St. David's day. There can be no fitter day on which I could seek permission of the House to introduce a Bill to make provision for the enfranchisement of residential property in Wales and Monmouthshire held under long-leases and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid. Ever since I gave notice that I intended, under the Ten Minute Rule, to seek to introduce a Measure on leasehold reform, from all parts of the Principality there has come a mounting wave of support for the proposal. Press, radio, and television in Wales have united in a vigorous campaign expressing deep concern for Welsh people who suffer so grievously from the leasehold system.
I am particularly grateful to the Western Mail and the South Wales Echo for the vigour with which they have supported the demand. In particular, the Western Mail has taken a stand which is very much appreciated in the Principality. The Welsh people treat leasehold reform as a very serious subject. No people in the world love their homes more dearly than we do. For that very reason, there will be keen disappointment at the way in which the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and his hon. Friends have persisted in dividing the Welsh forces in this House on this question. The notice of presentation of his Bill, which appeared on the Order Paper for the first time today, tells the Government that Welsh Members are divided on this question. Otherwise, hon. Members opposite would have supported the effort which we have been making for a long time on this question.
Leasehold reform is not a subject for manoeuvres and demonstrations of that sort. I had hoped that we would have support from hon. Members opposite rather than this demonstration of disunity. No part of the United Kingdom suffers as disastrously as South Wales from the way in which the leasehold

system operates under the working of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954. It has been gravely aggravated by the Rent Act, 1957, which has inflated property values beyond all reason. During the past year there has been a distressing deterioration in the position of leaseholders in South Wales, as I intend to reveal.
Under the present law the ground landlord is both judge and jury in his own cause. It is he who decides whether he will negotiate at all with the leaseholder concerning either a renewal of the lease or the sale of the freehold rights. It is the ground landlord who decides what terms he will offer, and at no stage in the whole of these discreditable proceedings is there any sign of a freely negotiated contract. The leaseholder is without the protection of the law. The law is biased heavily in favour of the ground landlord. Who but a lunatic would freely sign away the ownership of his own home?
The finance corporations which are represented on the other side of the House—I gave notice to two hon. Members opposite, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) and the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), both of whom are directors of a finance corporation which owns nearly half the City of Cardiff—have largely replaced the old ground landlords. Those finance corporations are enabled, by the 1954 Act, to cheat thrifty leaseholders of their birthright and to blackmail them with the full protection of the law.

Mr. W. T. Aitkin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) knows, I have some knowledge of these matters by virtue of a personal interest in the company to which he has referred. I have no objection to his criticisms, if they are genuine, and I believe they are. [HON. MEMBERS:" Is this a point of order? "] I think that I am in very good company in raising this point or order, because yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition raised very much the same sort of point that I wish to raise now.
The hon. Member, in the course of this procedure, knowing perfectly well


that you, Sir, do not wish hon. Members, in the process of asking leave under the Ten Minutes Rule, to be interrupted, has also used the occasion to make some very slanderous and completely inaccurate remarks. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the point of order?"] Like the Leader of the Opposition, I seek your protection and your guidance on what we can do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: At the cost of interrupting the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), for which I hope he will forgive me, I think that this is a serious point of order. I was much impressed by the protest of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, and, although I could not on the spur of the moment think of the right answer, I have pondered about it and I hope that I have now got it right. I think that I ought to ask the House to remember what our proceedings are under this Standing Order, or the whole thing may become rather a nuisance to us all.
The Standing Order allows me, when a Bill is opposed, if I think fit, to permit a brief explanatory statement from the hon. Member who moves and from the hon. Member who opposes the Motion. It would seem to be absurd, in those circumstances, to allow interruptions or interventions into the speech which would swell it up to Second Reading dimensions. On the other hand, it seems to me to be a corollary that if interruptions are not to be allowed then attacks ought not to be allowed, because the victim has no opportunity of answering on the spot.
I am confirmed in the right approach to this, I hope, by a Ruling of my predecessor, Mr. Speaker Fitzroy, which I wish that I had had in hand yesterday when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition raised his point of order. The actual pretext for my predecessor's intervention was that another hon. Member had protested that the hon. Member seeking leave had spoken for fourteen minutes. Mr. Speaker Fitzroy said:
Hon. Members must not forget that in asking leave to introduce Bills under what is known as the Ten Minute Rule they have no more titan the privilege of making a short explanatory statement of the provisions of a

Measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1931; Vol. 252, c. 1785.]
I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West will be able to follow that pattern, and that others will do so in future.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you have just said that you were impressed with the point of order raised yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. By that choice of words I suggest, with the greatest respect, that you have now suggested to the House that you were in sympathy with the point of order raised by the right hon. Gentleman. May I out to you the contrary point of view, that I did not attack the right hon. Gentleman yesterday. I quote my exact words—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Everybody knows what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said, because it is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am not making any reproach to anybody except myself for not having the answer correct yesterday. It is sufficient to carry this point to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was asserting that he was being attacked and asking how an hon. Member who found himself in that position was to have a chance of answering. That is all that I am ruling.

Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order—and I apologise to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G, Thomas) for interrupting his speech—. does your Ruling this afternoon mean, Sir, that an hon. Member opposing, as I was yesterday, a Motion to bring in a Bill under the Ten Minute Rule may not attack any Member on the other side of the House or any one of his colleagues? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that such a Ruling would be quite insupportable in practice if the Member concerned is to oppose what is being said by the hon. Member opposite.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that one can lay down a precise rule—a sort of lawyer's rule—about this. I should have thought it could be sensibly left to the good sense of the House. The speech of the Member moving should follow the indication of my predecessor, and that of the hon. Member opposing should be in line with it.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. Since my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) was not out of order in his speech, and no one has so far alleged that he was, might it not be better that he should be allowed to finish his speech and that we should deal with the points of order at the end of it?

Mr. Speaker: I respectfully agree. I do not want to encourage them.

Sir Spencer Summers: On a point of order. Arising out of the comments which you were good enough to make on this point, Mr. Speaker, you quoted from an earlier Speaker's Ruling and referred to what is called the Ten Minute Bill Rule. Are we to understand that the length of an opening speech is at your discretion, despite the Ten Minute Rule?

Mr. Speaker: The words of the Standing Order which I read are that there should be permitted a brief explanatory statement.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. You were kind enough to read the words of the Standing Order, Sir. is it not the case that under the Standing Order a brief explanatory statement in support of the Motion, and against it, is allowed only at your discretion if the Motion be opposed, and that those words govern the rest of the Standing Order? I ask that because a practice seems to have arisen whereby hon. Members moving unopposed Motions for leave to bring in a Bill are also making ten-minute speeches although no opposition follows

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member says is quite true. I think that all hon Members at present in the House know that we have adopted the practice of permitting a brief explanatory statement to the hon. Member seeking leave. I hope that we shall not interrupt him further.

Mr. G. Thomas: I am sorry that all this uproar has arisen from my setting out the terms of my proposed Measure I hope that it is in order for me to illustrate to the House why I wish to see leasehold enfranchisement in a Private Member's Bill.
In Dogfield Street, Cathays, Cardiff, there is a house with a ground rent of

£3 a year, with thirty-six years still to run. When the leaseholder applied to renew the lease he was told that the increased ground rent for the remaining thirty-six years would come to £523, plus a premium of £100, making a total of £623 for a lease of forty-four years. I could give the House many examples of the way in which the citizens of South Wales are being held to ransom by ground landlords. It is not my fault that I am unable to develop the argument here. They come from Pembrokeshire, Cardiganshire, Glamorgan-shire, Carmarthenshire and Monmouthshire. We have had an avalanche of letters from desperate people seeking protection.
My proposed Bill will, first, entitle all leaseholders to obtain the freehold of their home at a fair and reasonable price. I believe that people are entitled to own their own homes and that under the present system they are being prevented from so doing. Secondly, I suggest that there should be ground rent tribunals —equivalent to the rent tribunals that we knew in other days—to decide a fair rent or price for a freehold or the renewal of a lease, as the case may be. It is a monstrous injustice that the present law is weighted so heavily in favour of those who speculate in other people's homes. My proposed Measure would make it impossible for people to enter into speculation to make a profit out of the misfortunes of others.
I will give the House another example, that of a house in Bassaleg Road, Newport, Monmouthshire. The ground landlord was a Mr. Myers, of Victoria Road, Penarth. The ground rent is £3 10s. a year, plus 10s. for a very small piece of additional ground. There are about twenty-six years to run on the lease. The ground landlord says that he will not renew the lease, but that he will sell the freehold for £4,000. There is nothing at present to stop ground landlords asking what they like because they are the judge and jury—

Mr. Hugh Rees: On a point of order. Is it right to refer to a deceased person in this House? Mr. Myers died a week ago.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I heard Oliver Cromwell's name referred to yesterday.

Mr. Thomas: I am deeply grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to obey your Ruling. I realise why the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) wanted to silence me on this question.
I believe that the House could pass no single Bill which would bring a degree of freedom for Welsh people more than could be given by a Measure of this sort. I believe that the terms of the Bill, which are supporter by enlightened opinion throughout the Principality, are reasonable. I hope that the House will agree with me and give me leave to introduce it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Thomas, Mr. James Callaghan, Mr. James Griffiths, Mr. Arthur Probert, Mr. Arthur Pearson, Mr. Desmond Donnelly, Mr. Tudor Watkins, Mr. Ifor Davies, Mr. Padley, Mr. D. J. Williams.. Lady Megan Lloyd George, and Mr. John Morris.

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT (WALES)

Bill to make provision for the enfranchisement of residential property in Wales and Monmouthshire held under long leases; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th March, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(USE OF RECORDED DELIVERY PACKETS IN PLACE OF PREPAID REGISTERED LETTERS.)

Section eight of the Post Office Act, 1953 (which relates to the conditions of transit of postal packets and the matters in respect of which Post Office regulations may make provision), shall have effect as if the following subsection were inserted after subsection (1) of that section:—

"(1A) Post Office regulations may also provide:

(a) that a certificate of delivery given in accordance with Post Office regulations in respect of any postal packet shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery of that postal packet at the address shown in the certificate of posting for recorded delivery; and
(b) that in any Act specified in the regulations any provision authorising or requiring the service of a notice by sending it in a prepaid registered letter shall have effect as if the expression prepaid registered letter ' included a recorded delivery packet within the meaning in The Inland Post Warrant, 1961, in respect of which a certificate of delivery is subsequently given in accordance with Post Office regulations ".—[Mr. W. R. Williams

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The issues which we seek to raise were first brought to my notice and to the notice of my hon. Friends by the County Council's Association while the Bill was going through Committee. As soon as we read the letter from this body, my hon. Friends and myself realised that an important point of principle was involved. By the proposed new Clause we seek to amend the Bill to ensure that this principle should be embodied in legislation. Since we received this communication we have had a large number of similar representations from local authorities all over the country. I think it is right to say that hon. Members on both sides of the House have received similar communications from their own local authorities. It therefore seems that the matter is of universal importance and is well worthy of consideration on the Report stage of the Bill.
So that hon. Members who have not received representations from their local authorities may understand what the problem is, I should deal briefly with the service which is involved. Under the Inland Post Warrant, 1961, the Post Office introduced a new service called the recorded delivery service. According to a pamphlet issued by the Postmaster-General, and to advertisements inserted in the national Press on behalf of the Post Office, the new service is intended to provide proof of posting and a record of delivery of letters and other mail with the exception of parcels at the very low cost, in my opinion, of 6d., which is additional to the normal postage charge.
This is what the Postmaster-General says in the Press advertisement to persons who are thinking of using the recorded delivery service:
The service will help you particularly if you want to be able to prove delivery of documents.
You can send anything except money and jewellery "—
that is, if one has any—
so long as the total value is not above £2.
Compensation up to £2 is payable for loss or damage.
The right hon. Gentleman goes on:
You will receive proof of posting. When your packet is delivered, the postman will obtain a signature for it and this record will be held by the local post office in case it is needed. If you want proof of delivery fill in a special form available at any post office, attach a 6d. stamp, and hand it in either at the time of posting or up to a year later. A certificate of delivery will then be sent to you.
I hope that that brief explanation of the service will help hon. Members to appreciate the significance and need for the new Clause.
So far as I can see, the new service has been universally welcomed, especially by local authorities and public bodies. Under the service, the transit of letters is as safe as it is by registered letter post, and it is a good deal cheaper. In the view of certain authorities, including those which have been in communication with me, the words "proof of delivery" in the advertisement and pamphlets can be misleading and may have irreparable consequences if they are accepted at their face value. It is frequently necessary for the courts to be satisfied that notices

required to be given under various statutes have been delivered at a certain address.
The people who have been in touch with me, and I, contend that the new recorded delivery service can be most useful and less expensive than some of the other methods used for serving statutory notices. But—and this is the point I want to emphasise—it will be useful only if the certificate of delivery given by the Post Office is accepted by the courts as proof of delivery. It is, therefore, vitally necessary that it shall be provided by Statute that the certificate of delivery shall be accepted by the courts as proof of delivery.
The first part of the new Clause gives statutory recognition to the certificate of delivery given by the Post Office as prima facie evidence of delivery.
4.0 p.m.
I now turn to the second part of the new Clause. The various Statutes requiring or authorising notices to be served prescribe various methods for so doing, and usually alternative methods by which the service may be effected. One method of service commonly prescribed in statutes is that a document shall be sent in a prepared registered letter. The main object of that is to provide a record of posting and delivery. The second part of the Clause seeks to avoid the unnecessary expense of sending by registered letter post by authorising the service of notices by recorded delivery as an alternative to that service.
Since we have been considering this matter, I have received certain evidence. I am given to understand that the Home Office has already anticipated some of the legal disabilities of the present system and in its Circular No. 30, 1961, relating to the Evidence by Certificate Rules, 1961, says:
Any certificate or other document required to be served by subsection (3) of the said section two hundred and forty-two or by subsection (5) of the said section forty-one "—
hon. Members can look those up for themselves afterwards—
shall be served in the following manner, that is to say:

(a) where the person to be served is a corporation, by addressing it to the corporation and leaving it at. or sending it by registered post or by the recorded delivery service to, the registered office of the corporation or, if there be no such office, its


principal office or place at which it conducts its business;
(b) it any other case, by delivering it personally to the person to be served or by addressing it to him and leaving it at, or sending it by registered post or by the recorded delivery service to, his last or usual place of abode or place of business. The Evidence by Certificate Rules…are hereby revoked "—

in order to make this new provision, which includes the recorded delivery service.
These Rules may be cited as the Evidence by Certificate Rules. 1961, and shall come into operation on the first day of March, 1961.
It seems that the Home Office has anticipated the need for legislation in this respect and that it is only reasonable to ask the Postmaster-General to introduce similar legislation to ensure that this new service, which will be popular and remunerative, will not have any legal flaws about it which will deny it to the people most likely to use it.

Sir Barnett Janner: I support the new Clause and I hope that the Postmaster-General will not hesitate to accept it. It is reasonable and very important. The Association of Municipal Corporations is lending its considerable support and I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that something has to be done to make procedure in our courts, and in other legal matters where the proving of service of documents is necessary, as easy and effective as possible, without incurring the heavy expense now involved.
The position has now been altered. but some years ago, under the Army Act, it was necessary to prove only that a letter calling up a man had been posted to place him in peril of action against him if he failed to comply with his call-up notice. I have myself been engaged in cases in which the person concerned had not received the letter and had been charged with the serious offence of desertion in consequence. That provision was later amended, but the importance of proving that a document has, in fact, been delivered arises in many cases in the courts.
In many instances, evidence of posting or actual delivery has to be given before the courts can dispose of a case. Those of us who practise law know how difficult it often is to find the person who actually posted a letter, because proving a post book is often difficult as one has to pro

duce the actual individual who made the entry or someone who was present at the time. It will be readily understood how difficult that is if there has been a considerable lapse of time.
If the Clause is accepted, as I hope it will be, many of the difficulties will be eliminated. I can illustrate the sort of thing that happens by referring to the substituted service of a document when there is a debt or something of the kind and the individual concerned evades service. The court frequently orders that service should be effected by registered post. It would be much more satisfactory if this reasonable and cheap method of giving proof that a document had been delivered were used.
The courts would be glad to have a provision of this kind. Even with the serving of a notice of summons to appear before the magistrates' court, this method would avoid much delay and trouble which is now involved in proving the service of letters or documents. The ultimate result would 'be a considerable saving of 'expense and the time of the courts and witnesses who would otherwise have to be called.
This 'provision will also help commercial undertakings for whom it is often difficult to prove that a letter [has, in fact, been delivered with the present cumbersome machinery of getting proof under the rules for registered letters. The registered letter is not a very practical way of dealing with matters, particularly if a person has to send out many letters or postal packets which he wants to feel satisfied have, in fact, been delivered. Moreover, there is the question of delivery to the person concerned.
I think that commercial houses would use this to a very large extent for their own purposes, as well as legal offices. There are many transactions which occur with regard to property matters, notices to quit, notices on behalf of a wife who has to obtain maintenance from her husband and whose husband is avoiding orders—I could quote a thousand and one instances—where this could be put into practical effect.
All that one would have to produce to the court is the certificate that the Post Office had certified that a document had 'been delivered to a person at the address given. The onus of proof that it had not been delivered would then be


shifted on to the person who denied having received it. It is self-evident that this is an important matter, which can bring nothing but good and no evil of any kind.
This is a matter which ought to appeal to the Postmaster-General. I hope that he will not put us to so much trouble about this as he has done about some other matters, and that he will accept this Clause in a good spirit.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: I do not want to take up time talking about this new Clause, except to express the hope that my right hon. Friend will be able either to accept it or something of a similar nature. The Clause has been explained with considerable clarity by the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), who moved it, and, therefore, no further explanation or discussion about it is required. All that I wish to do is to bring additional evidence that there is a real demand for something of this kind.
The recorded delivery service is taking the place, to a very considerable extent, or will be once this Bill has been passed, of the registered letter, and it is appropriate, where local authorities, for example, now have to send documents by registered letter because they are forced to do so by Statute, that this recorded delivery service should serve the same purpose. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept this or a similar Clause.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: When my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) opened the debate he said that municipalities in general were accepting this new recorded delivery service. I have a letter in my possession telling me emphatically that in the City of Sheffield the town clerk has had to tell, the whole of his departments that he cannot advise them to change from a registered system of postage to a recorded system of postage.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I did not say that municipalities were accepting the service without the important qualification to which I referred. I think that it is true to say that the service has been welcomed in all quarters as very necessary, pro-

vided that the disabilities, with which the new Clause deals, are removed.

Mr. Winterbottom: My hon. Friend has interjected at the point where I was going to argue the case for the acceptance of either the new Clause or something which gives effect to his argument.
I want, first, to relate this matter To the registered post as we have it at present. In February of this year, the registration charge was increased from 1s. to 1s. 6d. and many towns and cities have, therefore, had this added postal charge when they are compelled to send out documents by registered letter. The. nature of the new recorded delivery service does not allow them, in many cases, to change their system of using the registered post to that of the recorded post. Many Acts of Parliament, for example, Section 105 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947; Section 37 of the Public Utility Street Works Act, 1950; Section 169 of the Housing Act, 1957; and Section 282 of the Highways Act, 1959, specifically declare that the registered post must be used when certain documents are sent out.

Sir B. Janner: I think that my hon. Friend rather emphasises the point that we are trying to put right. Registration is essential, but this is an alternative to registration.

Mr. Winterbottom: That is what I am trying to say and I am glad that my hon Friend has realised it, but before I can argue the case I have to put certain points of view which have not yet been expressed in the House.
I have referred to certain existing Acts of Parliament as proof of the need for accepting this new recorded system on terms of equality with the registered post. In particular, I am arguing that this is essential for municipal work, if additional expense is not to be incurred owing to the increase in the new registration charges.
It would be possible, if the Postmaster-General is prepared to accept the new Clause, or one like it, to reduce some of the municipal expenditure on the posting of important documents. In Sheffield we are at present on the horns of a dilemma. We do not know what we shall do if this Clause is not accepted


Its rejection will mean considerably more expenditure on registered letters.
Hon. Members have received from the Association of Municipal Corporations and, I should think, from almost every town clerk in the country, letters urging the acceptance of the proposal made in this Clause. I hope that the Postmaster-General will accept the principle. The wording may not be quite acceptable to him in its present form, but I am not asking that he should accept the letter of the Clause. I urge only that he accepts the principle enshrined in it and that he meets the genuine difficulties now being experienced by many municipalities.

Mr. Frederic Harris: There is plenty of work to he done by the House today and I do not wish to prolong the debate, but as everyone on both sides appears to be in agreement, I should like to add my voice in favour of what has been said.
I feel that the recorded delivery service will be invaluable to business houses. I do not want to take any profit away from the Post Office, but the present rate of postage is rather expensive. It certainly is a large item of expenditure to any commercial house. I am sure that once these commercial houses become well acquainted with this new service it will be very fully used. On the other hand, it should be a supplement to the normal registered post. I think that it will take only a limited amount from the income derived from the registration of letters and that, if fully used, will increase the total income of the Post Office.
I sincerely trust that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will find the answer to the difficulty raised about proof of delivery. Those who are not lawyers, but who find themselves, regrettably, in courts of law for one reason or another, know how difficult and expensive it is to produce proof of these things. If that requirement can be simplified in the form suggested in the new Clause a first-class job will have been done. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find a way of meeting this request.

Dr. Horace King: I am sure that local authorities will be crateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) for moving the new Clause and for the clear and cogent way

in which he put the arguments in favour of it. I hope that the Postmaster-General will also express his gratitude to my hon. Friend and will accept either the Clause or the principle embodied in it. I have been asked by my own local authority to support it, and I know that what I am saying represents the view not only of my own borough council but of all local authorities.
There is no doubt that the new recorded delivery service will be of great value. It is an excellent reform. This service will be both useful and economical to those who do not wish to send money or jewellery by registered post. I congratulate the Postmaster-General on having introduced it. It is a kind of half-way house between ordinary delivery and the registered post.
The Clause -embodies a plea to the Postmaster-General to give local authorities the advantage of this new service. At present, many local authority notices must by law be sent out in such a way that the authority can prove that they have been sent out. This means that local authorities must send a great deal of their correspondence by registered post, and much of that correspondence includes bulky documents which are expensive to post when registration, under the new rates. now costs from Is. 6d. upwards.
My own town clerk also points out that when documents are sent by registered post there is delay in some cases. because registered letters are sometimes not delivered until the second delivery of the day. At a time when ratepayers are making out their annual budgets with universal feelings of distress, a Clause like this which will make a little contribution from the central authority towards the great expenditure borne by the ratepayers will be a useful douceur. I invite the Postmaster-General to accept the Clause or its principle and thereby make this concession to the local authorities.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: I think that the town clerk of Bradford was very early in the field in seeing that some action by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General was necessary either on the lines of the new Clause, or by some other method, to deal with this difficulty, and some time ago I sent my right hon. Friend representations made from Bradford. We are anxious in Bradford that we should keep our costs


down, because for the first time for 20 years the Conservatives are in charge of the local authority there and for the first time for 20 years the rates are being decreased. We are therefore watching all these costs.
Apart from the advantages afforded to local authorities, the new Clause, as explained so well by the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), who is obviously the shadow Minister, will be of tremendous advantage in the ordinary activities of commerce. Thousands of insurance documents, for example, pass to and fro throughout the country day by day. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to follow the lead given from both sides of the House and will make some solid suggestion which will resolve this difficulty.

Mr. Harry Randall: There is so much unanimity on both sides of the House that I, too, do not want to prolong the debate. In the Post Office service there are occasions when members of the staff commit misdemeanours, and when they do so they are furnished with a form and asked to explain why. The form is known as "P.18". I think that the Postmaster-General is called upon to explain why it has been left to the Opposition to put a new Clause before the House to deal with something which should have been foreseen. This is obvious from the number of communications on the subject that hon. Members have received.
When I was a postman I was strictly taught that at no time must I receive a letter from the public unless it had been put through the aperture of the pillar box, because it was very necessary to have proof of delivery. If any postman dared to accept from a member of the public a letter that was not put through the aperture of a pillar box I am quite sure that he would receive a P.18.
This recorded delivery service is an excellent service and I congratulate the Postmaster-General on introducing it. I am sorry that he did not round it off, because in the communication on the subject which he published widely throughout the country he made it clear that he was providing the service as an alternative to the registered letter. The

Post Office document also refers to proof of delivery and proof of acceptance, but the matter is not completely clear at present, and there could be a great deal of legal argument on whether the necessary proof had been establishmed.
Therefore, even if the Postmaster-General cannot accept this Clause as it stands, I hope that he will take an early opportunity to introduce the principle. Even if that were not appropriate in this Bill, amending legislation should be introduced soon to put the matter right. Many people and organisations are most anxious to use this excellent service, so I suggest that in the circumstances I have mentioned amending legislation should be introduced to give the customer what he wants.

4.30 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) for bringing in this new Clause, and to tell the House at once that we wholeheartedly accept the principle and the objectives behind it. I am also very gratified by the complimentary things that have been said about this new recorded delivery service. It has got off to a very good start, and, although only a month old, is already proving popular with the general public. We are anxious that the maximum use should be made of it, and we are at present engaged in preparing legislation which will permit people to take full advantage of this cheaper alternative to registration.
The necessary legislation, however—as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Mr. Winterbottom) said—is very complex. Our consultations with other Government Departments are by no means complete, yet they have already produced a list of over 50 Acts that may require amendment. The wording of these statutes varies widely, and what constitutes evidence of service of a document is defined in different ways in different statutes.
We have not, therefore, yet reached comprehensive conclusions and been able to settle the precise form which an amending enactment should take. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Statutory Instruments. These can, of course,


be amended by Statutory Instruments, and we hope that, wherever possible, Departments will take that line and so enable them to make full use of the service.
The complexity of the problem can perhaps be best illustrated by reference to this new Clause. Leaving on one side the drafting weaknesses, which are inevitable, there are matters of substance that we could not accept. It may well be that paragraph (b) of the Clause would be unduly restrictive. For instance, it is not clear that the use of recorded delivery ought to be restricted to cases where an advice of delivery is subsequently obtained; the statutory provisions about registered post do not usually make this essential. This is the sort of point that will have to be clarified in relation to each Statute with the Department which administers the Statute before we can decide what is needed.
Secondly, the use of regulation-making power in this connection is questionable. What will be needed will, in all probability, be a series of substantive amendments of existing statutory provisions differing from each other. As at present advised, we do not think that it would be proper for this to be done by regulations subject—as would be those
under the proposed Clause—to the negative Resolution procedure. The proper course will almost certainly be found to be that of substantive legislation. It may even be that the nature of the changes will be such that legislation should be presented by some Minister other than the Postmaster-General.
Therefore, while we are fully in sympathy with the intentions of this new clause, and are grateful to the hon. Member for bringing it forward, we are convinced that it does not carry out its objects. On the other hand, we are not yet in a position to propose an alternative. We are, however, vigorously pursuing the matter, and I can assure hon. Members that whatever measures are found necessary will be promoted at the earliest opportunity.
I hope that the hon. Member for Gates head, West (Mr. Randall) will agree that I have filled in my P.18 to the best of my ability; we were anxious to get this service going. Like everyone else, we regret any delays. We are determined

to press ahead as quickly as possible with the necessary legislation, and this afternoon's discussion has disclosed that that legislation will have the support of all hon. Members. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member will be prepared to withdraw his Motion.

Sir B. Janner: The hon. Lady suggests that we should wait—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on the Report stage. He cannot speak again. Does the hon. Gentleman want to ask a question?

Sir B. Janner: I want to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General—indeed, to urge her—to do something between now and the later stages of the Bill. If she waits until legislation can be introduced for this purpose, we may be told that the business of the House is such as to preclude us from dealing with the Measure for the time being.
I do not appreciate the difficulty that the hon. Lady adumbrates. I know that quite a large number of Acts contain provisions about registration, but why not take the first step of saying that this service can be utilised for registration purposes? if there are any other conditions in the other Acts in relation to registration they can be dealt with by legislation later. Meantime, a vast number of communications not affected by the Acts that the hon. Lady has in mind could be sent at once by this new service. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General—and her right hon. Friend—will consider this matter between now and the further stages of this Measure, as it is very important that something should be done without delay.

Mr. Ede: It has been said that hon. Members have been inundated with correspondence on this subject. I am free from the flood, but, as President of the County Councils' Association, it is evident from what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) said that I was the originator of the flood, but took good care to remain on dry ground myself.
We have had the usual reply to such a Motion, given in such a charming way by the hon. Lady that it completely assuages the anger that we usually feel


on getting such a reply; but I hope that when considering this matter the Postmaster-General will use his influence with all the Ministers concerned to see that we get, at as early a date as possible—and, if possible, not later than the end of the present Session—legislation that will enable this necessary, important and useful reform to be brought about.
I understood the hon. Lady to say that already 60 Acts have been discovered—

Miss Pike: Over 50.

Mr. Ede: I am sorry that I exaggerated —over 50 other Acts—that need some amendment to enable this service to be fully operative. I have no doubt that as further dusty archives are rummaged it will not be long before 60 will be an understatement. If we want Parliament to gain in public esteem, this is just the sort of issue on which speedy action would be very effective.
I see that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) is here. I heard him the other Friday complaining—I am sorry that he feels it necessary to go—

Mr. Dudley Williams: I am just getting within range.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman was then complaining, I think rightly, in relation to a certain Bill that I support, introduced by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken), that people ought to be informed of action contemplated with regard to their land. As a rule, it is very difficult to find the owner of a bit of land who does not mean to incur any expenditure on it if he can avoid doing so. This service would be exceedingly helpful to local authorities when they have to serve notices on people whose only address, sometimes, is that of a bank, while they themselves are in some remote part of the world. There are all sorts of things in local government and ordinary business circles where the formality of proof of posting, first, and of delivery afterwards becomes an essential part of an important transaction.
We cannot say that we are satisfied with the answer we have received. That is not the fault of the hon. Lady. Everybody who has been a Minister has had to say, in the first place, "The draftsman

assures us that this Clause will not achieve the mover's object". There then follow about half a dozen other things that are common form, and she, I am glad to say, stated them this afternoon better than I have ever heard them stated, and left the least resentment in our minds. We hope that so propitious an approach will be followed up by her right hon. Friend and his companions in the Government to ensure that this matter is fully dealt with—I hope, this Session.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I feel sure that all hon. Members will very much appreciate the fact that the Assistant Postmaster-General has accepted the principle of this new Clause, but what perturbs us is that the hon. Lady did not say definitely how long it will take to put it into operation. A number of local authorities and business houses will be glad to make use of this service, but are waiting to make sure that proof of posting and delivery is guaranteed.
I hope that both the hon. Lady and the Postmaster-General realise that, quite apart from business houses, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people posting letters that might have important contents, but who are taking a risk because they do not want to pay the extra money. If this service can be extended in the way suggested, the Post Office's income will obviously be increased.
I hope that either the hon. Lady or the right hon. Gentleman will give the House more definite information about the date when the necessary Amendment to the Bill or amending legislation will be introduced.

Mr. Winterbottom: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that he has already spoken once.

Mr. Winterbottom: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. You ruled earlier that we were entitled to ask a question arising out of what the Assistant Postmaster-General said, and my only purpose is to ask a question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady has resumed her seat, but, in the circumstances, I think that the hon. Gentleman might ask a question.

Mr. Winterbottom: In view of the great number of Statutes providing for the use of the registered post, and as this is not the first time that the problem has been examined by the Post Office, will the hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of introducing a single amending Bill to cover the appropriate Sections in what I believe to be about 80 or 90 Acts of Parliament in which the necessity of postal registration of documents is clearly defined?

4.45 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I think that it might help the House if I were to say a word or two about this proposed new Clause. I say at once that we are entirely in sympathy with the motive behind it. I have every intention to promote the necessary legislation at the earliest possible date. I want there to be no misunderstanding about that. I say that partly, of course, because we have an eye to the interests of our customers, the local authorities, the legal profession, and so on, but also we are not oblivious to the interests of the Post Office itself. We ourselves have an axe to grind.
There are several complications which I think I should elaborate so that right hon. and hon. Members may better appreciate the detailed nature of this question. As my hon. Friend said, we have already asked all other Government Departments for details of the statutory provisions for which they are responsible in which the use of registered post is specified for the service of documents, papers and so forth. Also, we have asked Government Departments in which categories they think recorded delivery would be acceptable as an alternative to registration. I am betraying no secret at all when I say that I am perfectly certain that Government Departments will presently say in considerable numbers that recorded delivery will be acceptable as an alternative in the great majority of cases.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, there are at least 50 Statutes which specify the use of the registered post. To be perfectly candid, one of the difficulties here is that there are differences between the old system—and, for that matter, the present system of registration—and recorded delivery, in that registration involves the transfer of packages against

signature at every stage of their passage through the post, whereas recorded delivery goes through the ordinary post and there is not the same degree of security as in registered mail. There is the further difference that registered post requires a receipt which gives the name and address of the addressee whereas recorded delivery involves only a signature by the recipient in a receipt book held by the postman who delivers the mail.
Therefore, I do not think that we can say quite dogmatically—I put it like that deliberately—that recorded delivery would always be an appropriate substitute for registration. Nor can we assume with safety that the various provisions in existing Acts of Parliament for despatch by registered post have been written into those Acts solely to make sure that there is proof of delivery. At the end of the day, whether recorded delivery is acceptable or not is primarily a matter not for me or for the Post Office, but for the Department responsible for a particular enactment, and, of course, ultimately for the customer himself.
However, I will polish all that off by saying plainly to the House that we are forging ahead with our examination of all these matters with all the speed we can, and we shall proceed either to have the Statutory Instruments amended by Statutory Instrument or, in the case of statutes, introduce a Bill at the earliest possible moment. I should very much like to meet the wish of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), who suggested that we might be able to do it at a later stage of the Bill in another place. I am only sorry that it is not practicable to do so on account of time.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I am interested to know whether the Bill will be a Post Office Bill, or someone else's Bill. This seems to be the amendment of a collection of Statutes to enable certain authorities to take advantage of a new service introduced by the Post Office. Where does the responsibility lie, with the other Departments or with the Postmaster-General?

Mr. Bevins: That is precisely one matter which has to be hammered out between one of my right hon. Friends


and myself. I assure the House that there will be no avoidable delay in the matter at all. We want to make the service as widely used by the public as possible. That is our aim. In the circumstances, I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), who moved the Second Reading of the new Clause, will see fit to take it back for the present.

Mr. W. R. Williams: By leave of the House, I should like to say a few words before I accept the suggestion made by the Postmaster-General.
I am sorry that I did not know that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was the villain of the piece as far as we were concerned. I will tell my right hon. Friend that we have gone right through the hierarchy to the Parish Councils' Association, so that we have. I think, very well covered the local authorities.
I have been reading the Press advertisement again. If some of the things which the Postmaster-General said in his speech just now are correct, then, in fairness to the people who will use the service, I think that it would be as well to examine whether our advertisement is foolproof in so far as the degree of security and proof of delivery are concerned. I say that with the best possible intention. I know quite well that these things can easily become misleading, as has happened in this particular case, not because of anyone's fault, but because everybody assumes that we are dealing with the matter on the merits of a particular service and not something allied to it.
In those categories where Statutory Instrument would be sufficient for the time being, would it be possible for the change to be introduced by the Departments in that way?

Mr. Bevins: They will.

Mr. Williams: If that is so, I sincerely hope that Government Departments will conform and so limit the area of difficulty. I can quite imagine that there are legal complications involved here. It is a pity that someone did not have foreknowledge of what would happen. I am sorry that my hon. Friends and I have not the ingenuity and skill to produce a new Clause which would be

accepted and approved by the House today. As an old Post Office clerk, I have not sufficient legal knowledge either to argue with the hon. Lady, or to confirm or deny what she said.
In the circumstances, I think that the best course would be for me to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause, on the understanding that every possible haste will be used by the Department and by other Government Departments so that a good service will not be put out of its stride and handicapped at the beginning as a result of certain misleading factors. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Third Reading.
Sir B. Janner: Before we pass to Third Reading, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I ask you about the Amendments standing in the names of myself and some of my hon. Friends?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The only answer I can give is that they were not selected by Mr. Speaker.

Sir B. Janner: But is it not the custom of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and has it not long been the practice here. that those who put Amendments down should at least be entitled to plead—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, that has not been the practice of the House. We should never get through some Bills if it were the practice.

Sir B. Janner: Perhaps I have used the wrong word. I see the Clerk of the House looking carefully at me and noting every word I say. I think that it is within the recollection of the House—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. I am sorry, but it is not in order to debate Mr. Speaker's decisions on this matter.

Sir B. Janner: With respect—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, it is not in order.

Sir B. Janner: I just want to ask a question. In the circumstances, may I seek your advice and not plead—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. I cannot give the hon. Member any advice.

4.55 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a great deal of discussion on the Bill and a great deal has been said about our new Post Office status. There were two White Papers before the Bill was introduced which, I think, set out very clearly the purposes and principles behind the Bill. We had very full debates on Second Reading and in Committee. At this stage, it is almost inevitable that one should feel that there is very little more to be said, but, of course, today is an extremely important day in Post Office history and to many people attending to this debate, both inside the House and outside, it is the culmination of many long years of thought, development and planning in Post Office affairs.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) and the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall). who started their careers in the Post Office, will know how long this development has been going on and they will recognise that this is not a sudden revolution, but is the culmination of years of thought and planning. It is as much for that that we recognise the importance of today and we welcome the opportunity to speak in the Third Reading debate.
The development, of course, started in 1932, with the Bridgeman proposals. In 1955, we had the White Paper the principles of which were passed by the House. Today, in 1961, on St. David's Day—I do not know quite what the significance of that is. but perhaps it will augur well for a new measure of independence in our affairs—we have the Third Reading of our status Bill.
Some may ask why we need the Bill at all. What does it do? We in the Post Office feel that we need this new charter finally to end the concept of the Post Office as a Revenue Department and to confirm the principles already implicit in Post Office policy, that we should meet the demands of the public, at the same time paying our way, giving a good public service, and keeping the balance between social obligation and financial responsibility—the dual responsibility of

social obligation and financial and commercial efficiency.
Some hon. Members do not seem to have liked the word "commercial". In this context, the word "commercial" is a very honest and a very good word. What we are trying to do is to give the best possible service to the public. We are trying to honour our social obligations. We know that we can best do that if we have the most efficient standards possible, whether those standards be judged by the yardstick of public service, by the yardstick of good accountancy or by the yardstick of the best possible financial and industrial and business practice. This new charter for the Post Office will enable us to go forward with fresh enthusiasm, energy, initiative and enterprise to fulfil the obligations of which we are so very proud. It is important, also, in that in this new concept we are enabled to safeguard the position of our staff.
During our deliberations, we have had the greatest possible measure of agreement. Certainly, we have had long discussions, but those discussions have, if anything, pinpointed how much we all agree with the principles and objects of the Bill. Perhaps the only complaint that has been made has been the question, "Why does the Bill not give more freedom and why does it not go far enough?" We appreciate the spirit behind the suggestions that have been made by hon. Members, but we accept again a dual responsibility—a responsibility to measure up to the demands of the public and, at the same time, to measure up to the national interest and have regard to the broad economic considerations of capital investment in this country. Within that dual responsibility I think that our freedom should be judged.
The Bill maintains and strengthens Parliamentary control. It clears a way through the financial confusion which has often made it difficult for hon. Members to understand and be constructive about Post Office affairs. It will, I believe, stimulate a greater interest in Post Office affairs and perhaps the better informed debates that we may have in the future in the House will help to stimulate us in the Post Office and stimulate the general acceptance by the public at large of the problems and the opportunities that lie within the Post Office


itself. We believe that it will give us extra stimulus and will free us from outdated conventions that make it difficult for us to measure up to present-day needs. The Bill will enable and encourage us Ito greater effort and imagination.
Our main objective in everything that we do will be to strive to give the highest quality of public service. We must be enterprising, imaginative and efficient. We must be a progressive organisation capable of measuring up to the complex needs of the times. We cannot be fully efficient if we are handicapped by procedures and controls which are inappropriate to present-day needs. It is because I believe that the Bill aims to remove these handicaps, and will help us to shape the Post Office into a business organisation and help to bring to the public an ever higher standard of service, that I commend it with confidence to the House.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: The Assistant Postmaster-General has moved the Third Reading of the Bill with zest and enthusiasm for her Department which I am sure is shared on both sides of the House.
As a mere Englishman, I do not know whether there is any connection between St. David's Day and a greater measure of independence. There is, however, some association between St. David's Day, this Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), because it happens to be his birthday, and I am sure that the House will congratulate him on that.
Since the hon. Lady has been kind enough to refer to the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Openshaw, for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) and I all started our working lives in the Post Office, may I say that it is a proud moment for me and for my hon. Friends that the Post Office is about to enter into a new period of emancipation from the shackles of Treasury bureaucracy, though only in part, and will be given greater scope for initiative and enterprise.
The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General is about to be transformed from a politician into a business

tycoon. He will bear his new responsibilities and powers with his customary modesty. He will have the lowest salary of them all. He will have no expense account, nor will his permanent officials have inflated salaries or expense accounts. They are to show the country how a business enterprise not afflicted by the evils of commercialism can vie with private enterprise and show what public service can do. We look forward to that with great interest.
It is, as the hon. Lady has said, a very important Bill. It is a turning point in the history of the Post Office. I think that we are all glad that the head of the Post Office will retain the title which goes back to the time of Cromwell, and will still be known as the Postmaster-General and not as the managing director or chairman of British Post Offices Limited. Also, he will, of course, continue to be responsible to this House.
If the Bill is passed we have already seen the last of the Post Office Estimates in their traditional detailed form. The Post Office will cease to be a Government Department in many ways. It will become a new kind of State enterprise. It will be different from all the nationalised industries. It will be different from the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Bank of England. It will stand alone, quite distinctive. I am sure that we all wish it well in its new life.
All the staff of the Post Office will remain civil servants, whose pay and conditions will be settled in exactly the same way as hitherto. In that sense, the commercial freedom which the Bill gives to the Post Office will be qualified. I know that the hon. Lady has referred to the distaste, which has been expressed in earlier debates, at the too frequent use of the term "commercial". I myself criticised somewhat the fact that there were thirteen references to the commercial or business nature of Post Office activities in the White Paper entitled "The Status of the Post Office." It seems to me that that was rather overdoing it. However, it is undeniable that under the Bill the Post Office will have much greater freedom to indulge in commercial activities and enterprises than it has had before.
What I want to say about the staff, however, is this. I hope that the safeguard which is given to the staff, of remaining civil servants, will not stand in the way of looking at incentives and rewards for productivity in the Post Office as is done in other commercial enterprises. I hope that the Postmaster-General and the staff associations will not be too hide-bound by Civil Service practice, which may be very suitable for administration but perhaps less suitable to commercial work, or even to the supply of services which the Post Office will be giving under the Bill. I say no more than that I think the Postmaster-General and the unions should be free to consider all aspects of staffing, pay and working conditions which will promote the efficency and advance of the Post Office.
The hon. Lady has referred to the fact that the Postmaster-General's freedom of action is limited in certain ways. That is so. We have had discussions in Committee and during the Second Reading on the limitations placed upon the borrowing powers of the Postmaster-General for both short-term and long-term borrowing. We have considered the limitation in the Bill on the total indebtedness which the Postmaster-General may incur on behalf of the Post Office. Then there are restrictions on the investment policy and foreign exchange. The Postmaster-General will not be able to do just as he likes.
I doubt whether the chaiman of I.C.I., or Unilever, or Associated Electrical Industries would regard the Bill as commercial freedom. I think that the respects in which the Postmaster-General is limited in his actions would be the very ones upon which they would want complete freedom. Nevertheless, I think that it was generally agreed in the early debates on the Bill that, as a State enterprise, there would have to be control by the Government and by this House of some of its economic activities which might have a bearing on taxation or the balance of payments or in other respects on economic and financial policy.
I suppose that one respect in which businesses outside would recognise the new Post Office is that, for the first time, the Postmaster-General is to become a kind of pseudo-taxpayer. He has been rescued from Dick Turpin and has been

cast into the hands of the tax gatherer. Of course, Dick Turpin robbed him of a great deal more than ever the tax gatherer will lay his hands on. Dick Turpin has been at it for a matter of years, and the total of his robberies from the Post Office comes to a very large sum.
There is one respect in which I think it is desirable for the House to take note of the exercise of Parliamentary control. That is in Clause 5, which was subjected to some criticism in the Committee, though it was very difficult to find any alternative to it. I think that it should go on the record, for the benefit of the Leader of the House of Commons, whoever he may he, and for the benefit of those who may delay or obstruct Government business, that there are perils in Clause 5 which the public would soon suffer if the House failed to pass by 31st March each year the necessary Resolution which would enable the business of the Post Office to be carried on.
I know that it is possible to draw too dramatic a picture of all the post offices in the country being closed down one fine morning, all the postmen hanging around with nothing to do, all the telephones silent, and everything having come to a complete standstill, not because there was a strike, not because there was any breakdown in the machinery of the Post Office, but because the House had failed to pass the necessary Resolution of authority giving the Postmaster-General power to draw on the Post Office Fund. Unless that authority is given by the end of the financial year, the Postmaster-General will not be able to draw on the Post Office Fund next day.
I have said that none of us could find an alternative way of imposing this discipline on the House of Commons, and I think that it is as well that we should take note of the fact that to pass the necessary Resolution of authority to the Postmaster-General to draw on the Post Office Fund will be an imperative of Parliamentary business and procedure towards the close of the financial year.
Also worth noting is the discipline which is being imposed on the Post Office in Clause 12, with regard to the production of its accounts. As I see it, under Clause 12, for the year 1961–62, it will be necessary for the accounts to be ready by September, 1962, to be audited by


November in the same year, laid before the House in December of that year and the necessary Resolution passed by the House by the end of March, 1963. That seems to me to be a very tight timetable indeed.
For the accounts to be ready by September, when they will have been closed in the previous March, to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General by November and presented to the House by December, someone will have to work quickly during that period to get through the enormous amount of work which the accountancy and auditing of the Post Office accounts will entail.
I am still tempted to taunt the Postmaster-General with his readiness to accept the provision of subsection (1) of Clause 12 that these accounts shall conform to the best commercial standards, as if there were any. If we had not been so anxious to facilitate the Bill during the Committee stage, we would have moved an Amendment to substitute for that phrase
accounts which will conform to the requirements of the Comptroller and Auditor General
which, we think, would have been a much safer guide than this rather vague reference to the best standards of commercial accountancy, However, we let it pass then, and we must let it pass now.
One of our difficulties in Committee was that the Postmaster-General was so satisfied with the Bill that we could not stir him into any action or desire to improve it. We had never met so complacent a Postmaster-General. When he had the opportunity of gaining the support of the Opposition for a further bold dash for freedom, he held back and said that it was all right, that he had gone into it and was perfectly satisfied. We still did not think so. We would have preferred to see, for example, the Post Office have a much wider margin of. borrowing power than is provided in Clause 10.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member will appreciate that he cannot talk about what is not in the Bill. On Third Reading, we can talk about only what is in the Bill.

Mr. Houghton: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I hope that I am in order

in saying that I am dissatisfied with what is in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is entitled to say that he is dissatisfied; he is not entitled to say what will satisfy him.

Mr. Houghton: I can see that this is a kind of tightrope exercise, and I will go on repeating as often as I can remember that I am dissatisfied with what is in the Bill, and, then, perhaps, keep in order.
I do not wish to detain the House overlong, but it is worth while pointing out the respects in which we are still dissatisfied with the Bill. Clause 12 provides for a limit on the indebtedness of the Post Office of £880 million without further authority from the House, and a total of £960 million on the condition that the Postmaster-General obtains the authority of the House. We feel that these amounts give the right hon. Gentleman just a little less room for manœuvre than he ought to have.
I think, also, that we are not entirely satisfied about Clause 19, but we hope that in exercising his rights under that Clause the Postmaster-General will see that he reaches reasonably satisfactory business arrangements with Departments which now come to him for service. Now that the Post Office is a separate entity. the commercial nature of which is underlined, the Post Office must put itself on a somewhat different relationship with some of its customers than it has, perhaps, had before.
Another matter which met with expressions of dissatisfaction in the Committee concerns the number of respects in which the Postmaster-General has to do as he is told by the Treasury. We hoped that there would be a less peremptory provision in the Bill about his associations with the Treasury on particular matters. Of course, we realise that when a person may go to only one moneylender it is obvious that he must submit to his terms, but there are ways of expressing it even then, and it would have met with our approval if the Bill had provided for the Postmaster-General to reach an agreement with the Treasury on these things, instead of being directed by the Treasury, as is so frequently provided in the Bill. I think that that sketches in one or two of the points in the Bill upon which we on this side of the House are still not entirely satisfied.
The provisions for the pensions of the staff are satisfactory and the general arrangements which are made for the Postmaster-General to deploy his resources to the best of his judgment instead of being hidebound by the traditional procedure of the Estimates are generally ones of which we approve. No doubt we shall now see the Post Office embark upon a new spurt of initiative. Indeed, in the new Clause which we were discussing until a few moments ago we have a foretaste of the new commercialism of the Post Office's methods of presenting itself to the public. We see that
It is an indication of the progressive spirit that now inspires the modern Post Office in which mechanisation and new ideas are contributing to the development of the most advanced postal system in the world.
I am sure we all feel greatly moved by words of that kind. Looking at the code number at the bottom, I rather expect that this was written by C. F. Higham, Limited, the advertising agents. If that is so. I want to know what has happened to Colman, Prentis and Varley, which concern carried the Government through a General Election. What has gone wrong that the right hon. Gentleman should not be relying on that firm for his new publicity? It may be that he is to share his advertising contracts between a number of enterprising firms and that they will vie with each other in presenting the Post Office in these most glowing terms.
When speaking some years ago to a retired senior official of the Post Office, I asked him to tell me the truth about the Postmaster-Generalship of Sir Kingsley Wood, because it was then that the Post Office really emerged from a very long period of traditional submissiveness and lack of initiative. I was told that all Sir Kingsley Wood did was to take the lid off and allow freedom to the pent up initiative, imagination and inventiveness of the staff of the Post Office. I am sure that the Postmaster-General will wish to draw very fully on those qualities now. Indeed, I am sure that he is doing so already.
We all, on both sides of the House, hope that the Post Office will have a fruitful history before it under the provisions of the Bill. If the Postmaster-General finds, or if his successors find, that some of the limitations in the Bill

are curbing his freedom unnecessarily, and that he could do still better if the Bill were amended in some respect, we hope that he will not hesitate to come back to the House for its amendment, because we on this side, as well as hon. Members opposite, wish the Post Office to have, in the words of the blurb of the advertisement:
…the most advanced postal system in the world.

5.24 p.m.

Sir B. Janner: I am not altogether happy about the Bill, not because it does not contain some things that are very good but because it contains some provisions which, I believe, do not quite come up to what we had hoped were the intentions of the Postmaster-General.
We have just come from a Committee which reminded me, in so far as the Government are concerned, of a gathering observing something in the nature of a Yogi party. Its hon. Members sat dumb to the world, absolutely steeped in contemplation. I do not really know whether it was contemplation or just relaxation. I do not know what it was. The manner in which supporters of the Government accepted the suggestions of the Postmaster-General was as though they were saying, "Bravo. God's in his Heaven. All's right with the world." They just sat there and sat to such an extent that at one time I was moved to inquire whether, as in the case of the rule about tedious repetition, there should not be a rule dealing with tedious silence.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would remind the hon. Member that there is a rule about the Third Reading of a Bill. It should be about its contents.

Sir B. Janner: I am merely saying, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, why I am dissatisfied.
Nothing was said in the Committee which in any way helped us to understand where the Postmaster-General was going. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that under the Bill he is to free himself from the shackles of the Treasury? If so, perhaps he would explain to us before we give the Bill its Third Reading how far he will be able to do that.
In my view, the right hon. Gentleman fancies himself as a Houdini, but he does


not bargain with the Treasury which has some holds from which no escapologist, no Houdini, would be able to extricate himself. We are not happy at the fact that the Postmaster-General is still leaving himself in the position where he is almost under the complete and direct control of the Treasury. That is one of the big complaints which some of us have about the Bill as it now stands. We do not think that the Bill in its present form will give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of expanding the service —in most respects an excellent service—in such a way as to prevent the Treasury from doing what it wants to do with regard to financing it.
I commend to the Postmaster-General a few thoughts which are contained in a book by Durell on Parliamentary grants. I hope that when the Bill becomes an Act and is put into operation the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there are some opportunities, even though the Measure does not give him the full amount of power that we wanted him to have, which will enable him to do something about the matter. Talking about the Treasury, Durell said:
Nor again must it intervene too much in administration.
I give this gratis, chapter and verse, so that the Postmaster-General will know, when the Measure is put into effect, that he may have some method of saving the Post Office when it comes to a question of undue intervention by the Treasury.
The quotation continues:
Though the Treasury is a department having control over other departments, the word "control" implies, not that it is its duty to watch them and act the part of a detective towards them, but that, whenever changes are made and difficulties occur and scandals are detected, it is the duty of the Treasury to devise regulations for meeting, correcting, or remedying them. In this sense only does it exercise control.
When we tried to introduce something that would put that kind of policy into words, why did not the Postmaster-General welcome it? He says that there are still many difficulties in his way with which the dead hand of the Treasury has prevented him from dealing, but the dead hand of the Treasury has been a dead hand for a considerable time, and it is highly important that when the Post Office wants to do things it should not be limited by that dead hand.
The Post Office describes itself as a great commercial undertaking, but also as a great social undertaking—something which we have tried to impress on the Government on many occasions. I hope that, under the interpretation of the Bill, the Post Office will be able to say to the Treasury that it has no right to interfere when the Post Office requires something reasonable to be done. That is the caution I want to hand out—if I may use that term—and I hope that it will be accepted in good spirit by the Postmaster-General.
Is everything so wonderful in the garden? The hon. Lady the Assistant Postmaster-General will not have the temerity to say that everything is all right. I want to give a few illustrations of the way in which the moneys now being provided may have to be used. I ask that some items which have disturbed me of late might be looked into now that the Bill has reached this stage. A few weeks ago I received my telephone account for the previous six months. Included in the trunk calls was one for £6. I had my wife query that, because, at the date we were supposed to have made that call, we were in the United States and our home was closed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am having difficulty in connecting that with the Third Reading of the Bill.

Sir B. Janner: I am giving an example of what I hope the Bill, when it is passed, will remedy. If it cannot remedy these things, I want to know why, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could refer me to the Clause of the Bill to which he is referring.

Sir B. Janner: I refer, to the Bill as a whole.

Mr. Houghton: My hon. Friend may find in Clause 12 the power of the Postmaster-General to borrow money out of which he will probably repay my hon. Friend that £6.

Sir B. Janner: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I suggest that we are still entitled to deal with examples of cases where the Post Office is not, at present, as perfect as we would like to see it, and to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can satisfy us that what is in


the Bill will remedy those difficulties, in view of the fact that he has limited himself to certain borrowing powers. I know that I cannot ask for greater borrowing powers, but I want to know whether the powers contained in the Bill, and the money to be available, either from borrowing outside or from the Treasury. will enable him to remedy some of these difficulties.
When my wife queried the £6, she was informed that it was a typing error and should not have been in our account. As there were two other items charged for the time during which we were away, I sent the account back so that it could be checked. We were told that the present system was not foolproof and that we must, therefore, put up with it. more or less.
Will the money to be borrowed under the Bill enable the Postmaster-General to introduce a system which will remedy a position like that, and also to think again about the question of making charges for calls by time? He is to have some scope and is to go off on his own, according to the intentions of the Bill. He is to be freed from the shackles of the Treasury. I ask him to think again about doing something with the money to be made available by the Bill to remove difficulties. Otherwise, I may not be prepared to support it. Will he consider the question of charging people for calls by time?
It will be extremely serious for a person if, after two minutes, he has to stop a conversation because he has not the money available in the call box.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is going far beyond the Third Reading of the Bill. We cannot go into all these details.

Sir B. Janner: Are we not entitled to say that we want to know what powers the Bill gives to the right hon. Gentleman? I do not want to start reading all the Clauses, but they provide for sums of money to be borrowed or to be granted. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants so many hundreds of millions of pounds. We wanted more to be available. I shall not go into that now, but I do want to know whether the money he will have available will enable him to put right those matters which are now wrong. I am surely en-

titled to know that before allowing him to borrow £800 million.

Mr. William Ross: Clause 16 (2) reads:
The consent, concurrence or authority of the Treasury shall cease to be requisite to the exercise or discharge by the Postmaster General of any power or duty conferred or imposed on him by or by virtue of any of the following enactments…
Included in those enactments is Section 1 of the Telephone Act, 1951.

Sir B. Janner: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, because, obviously, that covers what I want to say. I am not entitled to say what I would like to put into the Bill, but I am entitled to ask whether what is in the Bill enables the Postmaster-General to do his duty in putting right certain anomalies. Millions of people in this country are concerned about these anomalies.
Will the right hon. Gentleman abolish these cumbersome and unhappy restrictions he places upon people who want to make telephone calls? It is the same sort of thing as the wretched parking meter system where one has to rush out, move the car to another place and put more money in. Is that the sort of thing that is to happen in our telephone boxes? Will a caller have to come rushing out and look for another 2d. in order to continue his call? If the Bill does not give the right hon. Gentleman sufficient power to remedy such anomalies, then it is a bad Bill in some respects.
I have another illustration from my personal experience, which I give so that he may know the kind of thing which is troubling people. A young American who was staying at my home booked a call to New York for his birthday early in January. Meanwhile, he received a note that his parents would telephone him. Accordingly, he cancelled his call. Instead of the call being cancelled, however, the two calls came through—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I cannot relate that to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Sir B. Janner: What arrangements will the Postmaster-General make with the money that is provided under the Bill? What will he do about remedying


a situation of that kind? There are other difficulties which I could quote.
If it is out of order to talk of examples of that nature now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it must have been out of order on Second Reading. Then we were discussing the purpose of the provisions of the Bill. I know that I am not entitled to ask for additional provisions, but I am entitled to know what the Postmaster-General will do with the hundreds of millions of pounds which he borrows. When I raised the same points in Committee, I was given no answer. The House is entitled to be told these things and whether the right hon. Gentleman will do what is essential to put right the things which are still wrong.
These matters may be a little uncomfortable for the Postmaster-General, because he thinks that everything in the Post Office is good. If that is what he thought, however, he would not have brought the Bill forward. Its purpose is to provide machinery to enable him to improve matters. In my view, the right hon. Gentleman will have a tough time, because, unless he is sufficiently astute, the one thing that he has not provided for himself is protection against the Treasury. I am not so sure that the right hon. Gentleman is sufficiently astute to be able to overcome the wiles of the Treasury. Whether he will be able to do it under the Bill, I do not know.
At an earlier stage, we had a long discussion about the extent to which the Post Office is to be used for commercial purposes and how far for improving social amenities. The pattern of living accommodation is changing. Most areas have a new appearance. People are moving to new towns. In some places, conditions are being improved, although not as fast as we on this side could improve them. Areas are becoming detached from others. Some areas consist practically of soulless houses where the people have lost the warmth of the neighbourhood in which they live.
The Post Office comes into all this. The local post office was one of the social centres in which the people used to meet to discuss their family affairs and the general affairs of the district.

That tradition is being interrupted. It is a duty of the Post Office to provide reasonable amenities for those people, wherever they may move. Does the Postmaster-General consider that the Bill will enable him to borrow sufficient money to provide those amenities?
On numerous occasions, I have cited the case of the post office required at the top of a hill, to which old-age pensioners cannot climb to draw their pensions. I have spoken, also, of the provision of telephone kiosks. Is the Postmaster-General satisfied that in a town like Leicester. for example, where the people have perforce been compelled to move from the centre of the town, the money provided by the Bill will be sufficient to enable him to take a more liberal and more human view of the needs of the people?
If a kiosk has been provided in, say, New Parks, Leicester, will the Post Office now want to remove it elsewhere because it cannot afford to provide another new one? I may be wrong, but I cannot help thinking that the Treasury has told the right hon. Gentleman to keep his expenditure within hard limits. I see from his smile that the trouble is not himself, but the Treasury. I want him to tell us that he will not remove the telephone kiosks from places where they do not pay their way. Does everything that is provided for the community pay its way?

Mr. J. A. Stodart: In the tremendous expansion and new housing schemes in my constituency to the west of Edinburgh and elsewhere, which sounds rather like what the hon. Member has said about Leicester, the Post Office could not have been more liberal and humane in outlook in providing new facilities.

Sir B. Janner: The persistence of the Scotsman has succeeded where I have failed. Now I understand what is happening. My Leicester constituents will not be overjoyed to hear that Edinburgh has something which they do not possess. My job is to see that they get it. I may be a quiet kind of fellow, but the Postmaster-General should have consideration for my constituents, who may not have as persistent and eloquent an advocate as the hon. Member for Edinburgh. West (Mr. Stodart).
Those things cannot be measured mathematically. I have done a little "maths" myself, but one cannot work out human needs by saying, "So much here, so many there". I admire the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West for his success. By pushing for all he is worth, he is able to get what he wants. I hope that, in time, I shall be able to persuade the Postmaster-General to give us in Leicester what the hon. Member has managed to get in Edinburgh. He is a charming Member, but if he were to ask a few of the Edinburgh people whether they are fully satisfied he might find that even they do not have everything they need.
I have done my best to keep within the rules of order. I said in Committee that the Postmaster-General reminded me of the words of a famous poet:
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon.
I am beginning to think that to some extent he has given away the powers of the Post Office. We are trying our best to help him, although he may not appreciate the fact. Let him impress upon his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he must use the money provided under the Bill in the ways which have been suggested to him, and that it will not be long before he returns to ask for more.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Randall: Nobody, on either side, will deny that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), who has skilfully kept within order, has pleaded the cause of his constituents very well indeed. I am not so sure, however, that I can accept some of his criticisms against the Post Office. I do not suggest that it is free from criticism and is faultless, but if the services of the Post Office—

Sir B. Janner: It was because of lack of time that I was not able to give the due praise which I should like to have done. I had to concentrate on the critical side because time was running against me.

Mr. Randall: I am glad to have that assurance from my hon. Friend. At least, his constituents can be satisfied that he has raised his voice in Parliament on their behalf and that the difficulties confronting his constituents will be looked at by the Postmaster-General.
In moving the Third Reading, the Assistant Postmaster-General said that there had been a great deal of discussion of the Bill. Certainly, there was considerable discussion in Committee. My only question is: who generated that discussion? I have a feeling that those discussions could have been shortened had there been better understanding of the arrangements in Committee. For the Committee to be confronted with the statement that, unless it completed its labours within a certain time, a Motion would be moved to continue the sitting of the Committee until it finished its work, was not helpful to the course of the discussion. However, I do not make a serious point of that. I believe that the general discussions which we have had have been of benefit to both sides of the House and of advantage to the Post Office.
One of my difficulties in the past has been that there has been inadequate discussion in the House of Post Office affairs, and I welcome the opportunity of discussing the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), himself and myself—as did the Assistant Postmaster-General—as having served in the Post Office for a very long time, and he said that this must be a proud moment for us. It is a proud moment.
For many years I have wanted to see the Post Office develop along the lines indicated in the Bill. For many years I laboured and argued. The Bill catches up with the recommendations of the Bridgeman Committee of 1912, which is a long time ago. I know that there are a number of reasons why those recommendations could not be implemented earlier. Up till 1939 there was an emasculated Post Office Fund, but this went nowhere near as far as I wanted it to go, nor as far as the Postmaster-General of today thinks it should go, according to a speech which he made in Nottingham, and which I mentioned on Second Reading. As a result of this delay, hundreds of millions of pounds have been lost to the Postmaster-General in the development of this industry. He will not deny that. In Committee, he spoke about re-writing the history of the Post Office. This debate brings the


recommendations of the Bridgeman Committee into statutory form.
Many people believe that a new era is opening for the Post Office after 300 years of the administration which we have known. I believe that the Bill will be a challenge to the Postmaster-General, because he will no longer be inhibited to the same extent by Treasury control as so many of his predecessors have been. He will have freedoms which no other Postmaster-General ever had over the last 300 years.
I was interested in a statement which the right hon. Gentleman made in Committee in which he said that hon. Members on this side of the House had not been as much trouble to him as he would have liked, simply because we had the service so much at heart. His phrase was that "we loved it so much". That was a little less than generous, and I hope that he will think about it. The test whether an organisation is good is not whether we hate it or love it. The approach of hon. Members opposite to nationalisation or of my hon. Friends to denationalisation should not be one of love or hate. The fact that my hon. Friends and I have not been giving the right hon. Gentleman too much trouble is not necessarily because we love the service so much, but because we are satisfied that the administration and the staff generally have been doing an excellent job. It is up to those who do not believe in State enterprise to be critical.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take warning that in this Bill is clearly indicated a different approach to Post Office operations in the future. There is an emphasis on commercialism. If the emphasis upon commercialism in the new venture is too great, my hon. Friends and I will be very vigilant. We shall constantly remind the Government of the Post Office's social responsibilities, if that profit motive becomes the dominating and deciding factor in the Post Office's approach to its problems.
Much was said in Committee about Clause 6, and a fact emerged from the discussion which I have suspected. Clause 6 lays it down that, taking one year with another, the Post Office should break even and make a proper allocation to general reserve, but during the

discussion it was seen that for the first time the Post Office is expected to make a profit of about 8 per cent. I am suspicious about this, because if it is achieved, it may be that charges to the public will rise, or that the services and the facilities of the Post Office will be reduced or that modernisation will suffer.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's explanations, but I was not entirely satisfied with his statement that this was to be the broad aim of Post Office financial policy. If under the Act, the profit motive becomes the dominant factor in Post Office working for the future, then I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will hear from us, despite the fact that we love the Post Office and despite the service which some of us have rendered to it.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not like the House to think that because of the shift in his thinking
the Post Office will degenerate into a soulless, hard-faced organisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January. 1961; Vol. 633, c. 184.]
He said that with efficient and businesslike methods the Post Office would still want to be warm and human in its relations with customers and staff. In view of that statement, it may well be that my suspicions of what will happen are not well founded, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Post Office's great traditions have been built on efficiency and businesslike methods and that it would be a mistake if the new methods placed an over-emphasis on profits.
May I next refer to Parliamentary control and discussion? In the discussions there were a number of references to the nationalised industries. I am particularly pleased that in the Bill Parliamentary control will remain with the Postmaster-General. It was one of the recommendations of the Bridgeman Committee that the public have a right to influence, which Parliamentary discussion and control can give. I am glad that that recommendation of the Bridge-man Committee is reflected in the Bill.
Without wishing to criticise the makeup of other nationalisation Acts and the boards of nationalised industries, I think that it is a good thing to have Parliamentary control. We shall have a Minister in charge, and this will give hon.


Members the fullest opportunity to question him and to discuss the various reports which he introduces. There are also various accountabilities, and this is an advance on any previous arrangement which we have had. I hope that with these new arrangements, and under this new venture, hon. Members will take the opportunity when reports are before us of looking a little more closely into Post Office affairs and discussing the affairs of this great industry.
I very much hope that the accounts which are presented to the House will be in the simplest form so that hon. Members may grasp the facts and the information in them. That will contribute considerably to a good discussion in the House. I note the undertakings given by the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General on this subject. Lack of simplicity has been one of the failings of the past. Now that we are to have a report from the Postmaster-General, let us have it in a form which we can understand in order that we may intelligently discuss Post Office affairs.
The Bill also mentions telecommunications. There has been much discussion outside the House whether telecommunications should be separated from the postal services. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has taken note that, although there is reference to it in the Bill, no hon. Member on either side of the House has argued for upsetting the present system whereby telecommunications and postal services will continue to run together. Suggestions have been made outside the House that there should be a separation of the two communications services, but in the House no one has advanced an argument in favour of separation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has taken note of that.
As I said earlier, the Bill offers a challenge to the Postmaster-General. I refer to a few remarks which he made in Committee when we were dealing with an Amendment to Clause 13 to ensure that he would not be too burdened on the take-over bids. The right hon. Gentleman said—and I agree with him—
All I would say on that is that I dearly wish that I could rewrite history in the Bill. Unfortunately, I cannot.—IOFFIctAL REPORT. Standing Committee F, 22nd February, 1961 t c. 280.]
I agree with him, because the implication of those words is an acknowledg-

ment and recognition of the outstanding success story of a State enterprise. I believe that they implied a longing and a desire, almost of envious eyes on the luscious surpluses of the past. But, as the right hon. Gentleman said, history cannot be rewritten.
Before we pass the Bill, however—it will get a Third Reading, because there is no opposition to it—it must be understood that if we pass it and have a new venture, it will have been introduced not because of any lack of industry, zeal and endeavour on the part of the Post Office in the past. Whether we consider success, or enterprise, or initiative, or surpluses, or staff relations, we find that this industry has been in the forefront.
There have been many Postmasters-General. In one of the rooms in St. Martin-le-Grand there are displayed photographs of almost all the Postmasters-General. They have made their contributions, and I think that it would be equally accepted that the administrative staff have made theirs. The staff have been, and still are, devoted to the industry, and I believe that the nation owes a good deal not only to previous Postmasters-General, but to the administrative staffs.
In recent years the administration has become more enlightened, and those of us who have been in close touch with the Post Office have not failed to notice the quality of service given by the administrative staff. One must remember both the staff and the staff associations. The right hon. Gentleman will agree, I think, that they contribute enormously to the well-being of the Post Office. In no other industry is the quality of consultation so high, and it is to the credit of the staff that they have never contracted out of their obligations. I believe that when the Bill becomes law they will continue to make their contribution to the new venture. The challenge which faces the Postmaster-General is not only that of living up to the traditions of the past, but of ensuring that in this new deal he takes the customers and the staff along with him.
This is a good Bill, and I wish it well in its remaining stages. The unfolding of the provisions contained in it will


to a large extent depend on the Postmaster-General and on the manner in which he holds the balance between efficiency and social obligations. To abandon these social obligations would be a retrograde step, and if I thought that the Bill would lead to the Postmaster-General doing that, I would oppose the Bill. There is no reason why he should abandon the fundamental links of the past. I want efficiency and enterprise in the Post Office, but not at the price of it retreating one step from its social obligations.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Wainwright: I do not expect to be able to make my short speech without you calling me to order Mr. Deputy-Speaker, even though I have had a good lesson from my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall). I am more inclined to be like my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner). However, if I do get out of order I hope that you will not deal with me too harshly.
The hon. Lady mentioned that this was St. David's Day. I hope that the enthusiasm shown by the followers of St. David will be reflected in the running of the Post Office. The hon. Lady also said that we needed this new charter. I agree. I trust that when it is placed in her hands and in those of her right hon. Friend they will prove worthy of the responsibility. The hon. Lady also said that we must meet the demands of the public. I hope that the Post Office will do that, but that it will not at any time forget its social responsibilities and obligations.
It was also said that we were afraid of the word "commercialism". Such an accusation is unwarranted. It depends on what one means by commercialism, and how one intends to carry on the business, and the methods to be adopted to give satisfaction to the customer.
The Bill gives practical recognition to the Post Office for it to have a cornmercialised standing. The finances of the Post Office are to be separated from the Exchequer by the establishment of a Post Office statutory trading fund. But that does not mean that the Post Office will be a totally free commercial enter-

prise. The Treasury will still have a few strings with which it can have some control over the Post Office, especially over its investment policy.
Such control, if exercised imprudently or in too restricted a manner, could easily prove to be deleterious. The right hon. Gentleman assured us in Committee upstairs that he had never had the cold hand of the Treasury on his shoulder, but I am afraid that the Treasury may sometimes be inclined to restrain the right hon. Gentleman from putting into effect a scheme which it thinks is a little too ambitious. In this era of tremendous scientific progress what may be termed ambitious by the Treasury may be considered by others to be purely business acumen. If one thinks ahead one realises that to carry out its obligations the Post Office will have to be progressive and will require a considerable amount of money to carry out its work.
Mr. Speaker, if I go outside the subject of the debate and quote a few things which I expect the Post Office to be required to do, I ask you, just as I asked Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to be lenient with me.
Clause 8 deals with the borrowing powers of the Post Office, and we find there the figure of £30 million. I am wondering whether this will result in some restriction upon the PostmasterGeneral—especially when one takes into account that Clause 9 restricts his borrowing powers to £960 million—and that, as a result, the Post Office may be in danger of losing the position it has occupied as one of the leading businesses. If the cold hand of the Treasury is placed on the shoulder of the right hon. Gentleman too heavily I hope that he will have the initiative to remove it and make certain that his Department remains efficient and progressive.
One can foresee that in the not too distant future satellite communication will be something which is not only the concern of America, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be backward in ensuring that this country plays its proper part in this connection. I understand that soon there will be a number of European countries associated in this matter and that for this country there may be a financial advantage of £25 million should we join in that scheme. I hope that the Postmaster-General will


tell us about his attitude to the scheme and what are his intentions.
The rate at which a business progresses usually depends on the amount of capital investment, and I should like to know whether it is the belief of the Minister that the provisions of Clauses 8 and 9 of this Bill will provide him with sufficient money to cover the capital investment projects necessary to ensure that the Post Office business will be extended. I believe that this may be restricted by the Treasury. During the Committee stage discussions we did our utmost to persuade the Minister to accept certain Amendments which would have eased the grip of the Treasury—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot now discuss Amendments which were not accepted during the Committee stage.

Mr. Wainwright: I am very sorry if I overstepped the mark, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for your guidance.
On many occasions the Postmaster-General has said that he is not as complacent as is the Post Office Engineering Union about the lack of telephones. This surprises me, because the union has played an active part in this matter and I have heard that the right hon. Gentleman has praised that activity on other occasions. I note that he is looking doubtful about that statement, but I am willing to provide him with details of what he has said.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: Tell us now.

Mr. Wainwright: I have not the time.
There are still about a thousand telephone exchanges which are manually operated and the Minister has promised to convert them to automatic exchanges by 1970. Despite his assurances during the Committee stage discussions that he would have sufficient money to fulfil the obligations placed on the Post Office, I am doubtful whether he will be able to do that by 1970. If it is essential, why could not the right hon. Gentleman have made certain when the Bill was drafted that sufficient money would be provided to allow the alterations to be completed by 1967 or 1968?
We feel, as does the Minister, that the Post Office must be one of the best of

the nationalised undertakings, not only in this country but in any country in the world. During the Committee stage discussions I took particular note of what was said by the Minister about future relations between the Post Office and the Post Office Engineering Union. I should like an assurance that there will be contact with the union and with the Post Office staffs in order that the existing understanding and good will may be retained, and the efficient running of the Post Office continued.
It is my hope that the provisions in the Bill will ensure a bright future for the Post Office and that the so-called freedom which the Measure provides will enable the Minister to reveal the business enterprise and vitality which are such so necessary attributes of any —I was about to say business tycoon——businessman, and enable the Post Office to fulfil its obligations to the public as well as to preserve a position in the forefront of activities in connection with satellite communications. In this way the Post Office will render to the public the service which it rightly deserves.

6.30 p.m.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: This Bill, with its thirty Clauses and its lengthy Schedule, amounts to a new charter for the Post Office. Before I give my approval to this important Measure, I want to ask one or two questions of the Postmaster-General.
In examining the Bill, it appears to me that the Postmaster-General is to handle a great deal of money. In Clause 1 we are told:
There shall be established a fund. to be called the Post Office Fund (hereafter in this Act referred to as the 'Fund ') which shall be under the management and control of the Postmaster-General.
The Clause goes on to say:
Subject to the provisions of this section. all sums received by the Postmaster-General shall. notwithstanding anything in any enactment. be paid by him into the Fund.
So a great deal of money is to go into that Fund. Clause 8 permits the Postmaster-General to—
borrow temporarily from the Bank of England such sums as he may require for meeting his obligations or performing his functions;


The amount of money he may borrow from that source may—
not at any time exceed the sum of thirty million pounds.
After examining Clause 9, I see that:
The Treasury may make to the Postmaster General out of the Consolidated Fund advances…
The total amount which may be borrowed by the Postmaster-General from those two sources, the Bank of England and the Treasury, may be, I understand from Clause 10, some hundreds of millions of pounds.
If the Postmaster-General is to handle these vast sums of money, I hope that when he winds up the debate he will tell us why he wishes to have these powers and on what the expenditure is to be. The telephone service might well be improved. In many parts of the country telephone exchanges are out-of-date. I hope that some of the money will be spent on modernising or building entirely new telephone exchanges.
In Morley, a part of my constituency, the telephone exchange is very much out-of-date, but we are fortunate in that the Postmaster-General has agreed already to spend some money to provide a new one for that borough. I passed the building site a few days ago, and I was pleased to see that building was going ahead satisfactorily. In the other part of my constituency, Batley, the telephone exchange is very antiquated. I wish the Postmaster-General would look into that and consider the provision of a new telephone exchange there.
I have had the pleasure of visiting the post office in Batley on a number of occasions. I have been into that part of the building in which the telephone exchange is situated. The conditions there are far from satisfactory.

Mr. Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Member to go as far as possible on Third Reading, but he cannot do a constituency tour suggesting improvements on this occasion.

Dr. Broughton: Very good, Mr. Speaker; I was not going to pursue that line further, but I wished merely to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to that need. I hope that when he winds up he will tell us that some of this

money will be spent on improving and modernising telephone exchanges and building new ones in many parts of the country.
I hope that measures will be taken for the country to have such an excellent telephone service that people will use it much more than they do now. I had the opportunity and privilege of visiting the United States of America recently. I found that people there use the telephone more than people do in this country. It seemed to be regarded by Americans as an essential, whereas here it is regarded as a business requirement and a luxury. I hope the Postmaster-General will invest some of this money wisely to provide a telephone service at cheap rates which many more people will be pleased to use. I hope he can tell us he has ideas of that kind in mind.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams: We have now reached the stage on this Bill when we cannot give any more advice or guidance to the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady. We have spent many hours upstairs in Committee giving what we regarded as excellent advice. We feel that if that advice had been followed the Bill would have been a better one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) thought this a very good Bill. I am inclined to agree with him, but I am satisfied that had some of the suggestions we put forward been accepted—not all in the form of Amendments—they would have made it very much better. I must express personal dissatisfaction with some of the Clauses as they remain in the Bill. We did our best in Committee to put those ideas forward, and we have now reached the stage when we cannot do anything more of that kind.
I express my appreciation to hon. Friends who have helped me considerably in a responsibility which was placed upon me in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I assure the House that the Shadow Cabinet took this Bill very seriously and thought it a major Bill. As such, the Shadow Cabinet thought that I should have the assistance of my very good and knowledgeable Friend the Member for Sowerby. I pay


my tribute to the work he has put in on this Bill. I am sure that tribute will be shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not want to make any invidious comparisons with other hon. Friends who have done good work on the Bill. I am sure they will accept my appreciation, as a sort of apprentice at this sort of job, of the assistance they have given me.
Hon. Members opposite in Committee gave me tremendous sympathy There is no doubt about that. I heard it in their voices and detected it in their glances and conversation, but, as often happens in this House, it was the sympathy of the dumb, almost the sympathy of the dead. Yet I am very glad that we had it. I felt quite sure that if the vow of silence had not been imposed on them and if they had not had the discipline of the Patronage Secretary, about which we know so much, they would have been solidly behind us in trying to make this Bill better.
I had a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman had had his riding instructions from his trainer—the Treasury. He seemed to ride the race in that way. He was under strict instructions from the Treasury and never deviated from the straight, precise course all through. Actually, he was guilty on occasions, if I may say so, of bumping and boring. He was guilty of bumping more than boring, because he tried to stifle our constructive criticism of the Bill by moving that we should meet twice in a day, after just one sitting. We regarded that as being rather unfair to Members who wanted to try to help him in this onerous task. Of course, he was also bumped now and again, with the result that on that score we can, perhaps, say that we are about evenly matched.
This Bill, as many hon. Members have already said—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir B. Janner), the hon. Member for Gateshead, and, indeed, the hon. Lady herself—marks a new era in the history of the Post Office. The Post Office has 300 years of history, and for a large number of years it has continued its even ways very much the same as I have experienced it in the course of my forty-five or forty-eight years association with it. However, for the first time in that 300 years, so far as I can ascertain, it must now share its traditional functions

of providing an efficient, speedy and sound public service with another obligation—that of making a profit, a fixed return on assets. In future, the Postmaster-General will not only be called upon to fulfil the normal social obligation—making quite sure that the pensions of old people are paid in the correct way and that the welfare services which successive Governments have legislated through enactments in this House are maintained —but he will also become responsible to the House under the Bill to determine that there shall be a predetermined return on assets employed. This is a hybrid arrangement. There are two conflicting obligations enforced upon the Post Office, and time alone will prove whether this hybrid set-up will be successful and as ideal a set-up as the old traditional one. Will social obligations and profit motive be compatible? That is a question I leave with the House with regard to the general approach of this side of the House to the Bill.
Throughout its history the Post Office has fought to break even with regard to its income and expenditure. It has always tried to do that and put something into reserve. If I were in a position to do so on Third Reading, I could say that possibly over £500 million have been transferred to the Exchequer through services that have come from the Post Office. There is no doubt at all that in its organisation, administration and working it has never been a spendthrift Department; it has never run itself into debt or difficulties of a financial character. It has done its best to try to break even and put something into reserve.
We are here up against a profit motive for the first time, and I suggest very seriously to hon. Members that it may not be so easy for them in the future to challenge the Postmaster-General when he has not put up a telephone kiosk in a small village, when he has not opened a new post office in Leicester or somewhere else, or cannot bring in a new service which a new housing estate or something of that sort would have justified. It seems to us that with these conflicting obligations and duties it would he very difficult for the Postmaster-General to draw a straight course.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: This is very interesting and affects all


Members of the House. but is my hon. Friend suggesting that if we give this Bill a Third Reading there will be any diminution in the existing opportunities to put questions to the Postmaster General about his failure to carry out his duties with regard to providing telephone facilities?

Mr. Williams: I hope I have not given that impression to any of my hon. Friends or Members of the House. That is not the point I am making. If the Postmaster-General has to show a profit over and above what I have been referring to as the "breaking even" arrangement, it will not be quite so easy for him to concede to hon. Members the provision of services in rural areas which are uneconomical and unprofitable.
I deal now with part of the hon. Lady's speech and join with all my hon. Friends who have referred to her charm, which has never left her, even in the Committee. The hon. Lady said that what we have to do is to try to strike a balance between social responsibility and commercial obligations. I suggest to the Postmaster-General and his assistant that that will not be a very easy matter. I am afraid that he will find it is a pretty delicate task, as the hon. Lady has said. I admit straight away that the right hon. Gentleman did make quite a clear statement which I will quote:
The Post Office certainly has to consider its social obligations to the public. There is nothing in the Bill which derogates from that, or which weakens our sense of social responsibility. I want to say categorically that we should continue to honour these obligations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January. 1961; Vol. 633, c. 180.]
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to reiterate that assurance tonight, because he can take it from me that on this side of the House we have been most concerned as to how he is going to keep this sense of balance as between his social obligations and the profit motive. We all know that when the bug gets hold of us it is very easy to say, "We made 5 per cent. this year and that should encourage us to make 6 per cent. next year." We are afraid that the Postmaster-General will find himself up against one of two alternatives if he does that. He may find himself, in order to reach a predetermined fixation of profit. saying, "I am going to

stick to my objective of profit, but I may have to reduce the services or increase the charges for services; I may have to delay and slow down the expansion of essential services, and I am prepared to do so in order that I may maintain my fixed, predetermined profit return on net assets." I should like him once again categorically to reassert that that will not be so.
There was something in Reynolds News last Sunday which seriously disturbed me. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman must have seen this article. In case he has not, I think that I should read it, because it concerns the point with which I am dealing, namely, the danger of the right hon. Gentleman taking the profit motive as the prime consideration in his approach to the future of the Post Office and then coming to the House and asking for authority to impose higher charges or to reduce services. Under the heading
 Postal charges up, then school meals "—
I have nothing to do with school meals tonight—this is what the article said:
Evidence of plans for a new three-pronged attack by the Government on the family purse will cause a fresh storm in the Commons. It will push up the charges of public services, ranging from the Post Office to electricity….
That is the general charge. I now come to the specific charges contained in the article. This is what it says about public services:
A Government plan is being drawn up to force nationalised industries to raise money for expansion by charging the public more for services. They will be expected to earn larger surpluses and to rely less on Government loans for modernisation schemes.
This is what we discussed in Committee at great length. It continues:
The Post Office charge for printed material will go up from the basic 2d. for two ounces to 2½. The Post Office is now losing about £4 million a year on this service, which covers Christmas, birthday and greetings cards. newspapers, catalogues.
and so on. Hon. Members interested in football pools will be glad to know that football pool firms are exempted from the terms of this prophecy.
We are afraid that if there is too much emphasis on the profit motive the bias will be in favour of the profit motive rather than in favour of the traditional obligation of the Post Office to provide efficient, speedy and economic services. I sincerely hope that the House will keep


in mind some of the things to which I have referred.
I wish to say something about the Post Office fund. On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said that the heart of the Bill lies in Clause 1, with which I agree. It is therefore essential that the old "ticker" should be sound and in good shape from the start. We are uncertain whether the Post Office fund is in such a healthy state as we would wish. We welcome the establishment of the fund. We are pleased that it will be at the sole disposal of the Postmaster-General. We trust that the right hon. Gentleman will use whatever resources he may have in the fund with imagination, courage and enthusiasm. Those were the words with which the Assistant Postmaster-General introduced the Third Reading, and I subscribe to them.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is ample scope for him to use whatever money is available in the fund or elsewhere. We do not think that there is enough in the fund. We do not think that he has taken to himself sufficient borrowing powers, but at this stage I aim not concerned with that. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport has just come in because I propose to mention him "in dispatches". There is ample scope for the Postmaster-General to consolidate and improve the existing services. There is also scope for an imaginative and invigorating approach to the future requirements of a fast-moving technical and electronic age. I am sure that the Minister of Transport will agree with that. Things are moving very fast on our roads and I am sure that he will agree that we cannot afford to laze about. We must be on the alert. We must be vigilant, enthusiastic and determined to take advantage of every opportunity which presents itself.
We should have been more satisfied had there been more money in the fund at its inauguration. Be that as it may, from now on the right hon. Gentleman is solely responsible for the spending of that money, and that is a fact which I want to impress on the Minister and on the House. In the past, successive Postmaster-Generals have been able to shelter behind the Treasury. Sometimes

they have been justified in doing so, sometimes they have not. It has been very handy on occasions to have that sort of iron curtain of the Treasury behind which to retreat when the attack became hot, determined and lasting. From now on the right hon. Gentleman will have sole responsibility for administering the fund. His will be the responsibility and his will be the opportunity.
I want to say a few words about the limitation on indebtedness in Clause 10. I realise that on Third Reading I cannot comment at great length on this matter, although my hon. Friends and I believe that it is the basis of the new conception—whether it will succeed or fail. Despite all the right hon. Gentleman's assurances, we on this side still consider that shackles have been unreasonably fixed on him by the Treasury. He gave one assurance Ito which we attach the utmost importance. He claims that there is nothing in Clause 10 to prevent him coming to the House at any time to secure the lifting of the ceiling on the limitation of borrowing. He can seek to obtain greater borrowing powers from the House. We regret very much that he should have allowed himself to be so fettered and handicapped at the start, but we accept at its face value, and with the integrity which we ascribe to others and which we hope others ascribe to us, that if he feels that he wants more money he will not wait three or four years before coming to ask for the authority of the House to get it.
I say that because my hon. Friends and I believe that there should be a five-year plan at least in the Post Office. Here I wish to refer to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport. I have quotations here—I have not time to refer to them—in which the right hon. Gentleman said in effect, "You cannot run a business of the magnitude of the Post Office on a year-to-year budget, or a sort of"—
It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: It might be convenient if I indicated that if and when we get to the Instructions, the Instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) is not selected and the other two are. I say that because it affects the order in the discussion.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I welcome the Bill. As hon. Members will recall, I spent nineteen years in the Solicitor's Department of the Great Western Railway and one year with the Transport Commission. For part of that time I was in the section that dealt with Bills of this nature. This Bill strikes me as being a model of its kind. It is clear, concise and informative and it follows the practice which such Bills follow of putting the Interpretation Clause at the beginning. It has always seemed to me rather a pity that that was not a general practice in all Bills. In so many Public Bills one has to look right at the end for the Interpretation Clause, or, possibly, various interpretations and definitions are scattered throughout a Bill.
The Bill contains a number of Clauses relating to useful works. I understand that several of my hon. Friends will raise points with regard to Part III of the Bill, which deals with docks and inland waterways. I leave the details to them. I merely say that in view of the proposals in the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings, Command Paper 1248, to the effect that waterways should vest in a separate inland waterway authority, I hope that nothing in this Bill will prejudice any decisions which that authority might wish to take when eventually it comes into being.
Among the list of useful works, Works Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are, no doubt, of special interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), whom I see in his place. I do not know quite what their effect will be, but I hope that they will have an effect in connection with flooding. One of the major

disturbances caused by the floods at Exeter was not only inconvenience and damage to the City of Exeter but that the Western Region line was interrupted on both sides of Exeter. On several occasions trains had almost to put to sea for quite long distances. The line was surrounded by water and several times it was cut.
In this day and age that sort of thing should not happen to a major railway line. The country West of Exeter is dependent upon it. As yet we have no major motor roads in that direction. If the line is cut it is a serious matter, not only for the people of Exeter but for everybody Westwards, including the whole of Cornwall. I hope that the works referred to in the Bill will help to improve matters in that respect.
My chief criticism, in so far as it is a criticism, of the Bill relates to an omission which is certainly no fault of the Transport Commission. I am aware that the White Paper to which I have alluded envisages great changes in the structure of the Transport Commission which will need legislation. It may be that the same argument which I have indicated in regard to canals and inland waterways applies also to railways in that it would be inappropriate to make any major alterations at this time prior to any legislation which follows the White Paper setting up bodies, in particular the Railways Board, which may have views on what should be done with regard to British Railways.
Nevertheless, the congestion of traffic in London has already reached the stage that we need far more drastic improvements to the underground sections of railway in London than are envisaged in Works Nos. 1 to 7 in the Bill, which do not seem to me to be of a substantial nature.
All those who are familiar with the problems of transport will know that for many years the Commission and. in particular, London Transport have been saying that a major contribution to the relief of congestion of London traffic would be the extension and improvement of the underground lines in London. Mr. Valentine has said this on a number of occasions, as did his predecessors. Certainly that is fairly obvious when one thinks about it. There has been no major construction of


underground lines in London for many years. Although there has been extension into the country at either end of some of the lines, the stations in the central area are not capable of carrying much more traffic than they do now because of the length of the platforms. If it were possible to extend the length of the platforms in the central London area, I am told that the London underground railways could carry a great many more passengers than at present and could carry them in greater comfort than in the very congested conditions of the rush hours which, owing to the developments in working hours in London, have been compressed into ever shorter periods.
In that connection, there is one point on which I should like to make a brief observation. I alluded to this matter in a supplementary question this afternoon following a Question by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) who asked a Question concerning the Victoria line. I asked whether, before deciding whether the Victoria line was suitable, it would be borne in mind that it had social as well as economic reasons such as the social considerations that are taken into account in dealing with roads.
A rather curious position seems to be arising. For a number of years, when dealing with motorways it has been customary to use as an argument the fact that a motorway pays for itself in a very short time by reason of the more even flow and greater speed of the traffic. All sorts of hypothetical savings are made. I first heard this argument used by the Dutch a number of years ago in favour of their motorway from Rotterdam to Utrecht. They worked out a complicated set of figures by which they convinced themselves that the road would pay them very well indeed because, by reason of the steady flow of traffic, drivers on the road would not have to apply their brakes, thereby not wearing out tyres or gears, resulting in a hypothetical financial saving, and that by reason of not having to slow down and accelerate there would be a saving in petrol. A formidable figure was arrived at.
That was the first time I heard that argument and it was some years ago. It is now common currency in this country

in connection with our motorways. There is certainly something in the argument. But if we are to use that argument with regard to roads, we must also bear it in mind when we come to questions like the underground railways in London. It is no good using two arguments in opposing directions, to say that a large sum of money is justified in building motorways for social benefits but that an underground railway could not be built because the fares to be collected from passengers on the route would be unlikely to give a return on the capital expenditure.
We should also take into consideration what saving, if any—I agree that it must be established that there would be saving to the Exchequer—there would be in not having to make other improvements to surface roads or off-street parking if a larger proportion of passenger traffic travelled underground.
That is the only criticism I have of the Bill, in that the improvement suggested for underground railways seems to be rather small. Although one does not expect it to be put in this Bill, I hope that the improvements in the London underground system will be considered at an early date and that the social as well as the economic considerations will be borne in mind.
The other feature of the Bill which seems to be notable is the miscellaneous Clauses at the end which seem to me to be perfectly innocuous. That cannot always be said of Bills of this nature. Sometimes major changes are slipped in at the tail end of a Bill in some Clause or other. Perhaps my hon. Friends will have spotted one, but I certainly have not in this Bill and I think that the Bill should commend itself to the House. For that reason I am glad to support it.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I do not propose to take up more than a few minutes of the time of the House, but there is one section of the Bill which causes me some concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) referred to the fact that there are certain works in connection with Clause 5 which affect my constituency. I am not so worried as he is, with his great experience of the railways systems of this country, about the effect of these


works on the railways running out of Exeter, but I am a little concerned whether these works will in any way increase the risk of flooding in the city which I have the privilege to represent.
I do not think it unfair to say that there has been criticism in the City of Exeter of British Railways and the way with which they have interfered with the flow of the river by building out by St. David's station, which has certainly diverted the river when in flood.
I am surprised that I had no advice from the city's Parliamentary Agents regarding the works to which I am about to refer. If my right hon. Friend will turn to pages 6 and 7 of the Bill, he will notice that at the bottom of page 6, line 40, reference is made to the City and County Borough of Exeter and to Work No. 8, and, on page 7, to Works Nos. 9, 10 and 11. These are fairly substantial works. They are mainly above Cowley Weir, and I think that it is very dangerous indeed for one authority—British Railways—to start interfering with the course of a river like the Exe, or any other river, if, at the same time, there are other authorities charged with the responsibility.
We have had much discussion recently in the House about the activities of the river boards. In the case of the Exe, which has been the scene of serious flooding in the recent past, we are having a survey made by consultant engineers, acting for the Devon River Board, to decide what steps should be taken concerning the Exe to ensure that serious flooding does not occur in the future. It is most undesirable for these works to be constructed by British Railways unless they have the full approval not only of the City Council of Exeter, but also of the Devon River Board. It is, otherwise, quite useless for instructions to be given by the river boards to carry out surveys in order to ensure that people cannot again suffer the distress which has occurred in Exeter in the last six months.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that these works will not be carried out except with the approval of the Devon River Board and the local authority. Provided that that is done. I find the Bill acceptable.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I want to comment briefly on the Clauses dealing with navigation in certain areas. One of the proposed works runs through my constituency, and my constituents are apprehensive about being precluded from using the tow-paths as rights of way, because these are used frequently as short-cuts by people going to and from work. I should like an assurance from the Minister that people will not be precluded from using the tow-paths where the canals are closed to navigation.

7.17 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): On Second Reading, I propose to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) and the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton). I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro for saying that this is a lucid and concise Bill. He is an acknowledged expert in these matters. He has spent a great deal of time with the British Transport Commission and speaks with great knowledge. I think that we ought to congratulate the Commission on trying to make the Bill readable and lucid. which, sometimes, Bills are not, but I am sure that this Bill is, like most of the Bills that emanate from the Ministry of Transport.
There is nothing in the Bill which will prejudice the new management of the inland waterways in any way. In certain details, matters relating to the closure of canals are fixed, but this new body, which will deal solely with waterways, will have its task relatively unimpaired by what is in the Bill. It will be given a flying start to concentrate on its job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro mentioned the Exeter flooding. I realise that this is a serious matter, and I will deal with it when I reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro referred to the omission of any reference to the Victoria tube. He then made some comment on the costing of motorways and how much was saved. I agree with my hon. Friend that accountancy is a very curious profession. I say that as an accountant originally and as a chartered


accountant still paying my subscription. I believe that many of these calculations depend upon what the person wishes to prove.

Mr. Wilson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Marples: I thank my hon. Friend. It is amazing how far-fetched some of the assumptions can be when people wish to prove a point.

Mr. Ede: Like Ministers.

Mr. Marpies: No, not like Ministers—like ex-Ministers.
I suggest that just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder so assumptions are in the heart of the calculator. I agree that some of the assumptions made about savings on the roads are very far-fetched. Those mentioned are reasonable, but there are various degrees of being reasonable. As to the Victoria tube, the Government have been a long time making up their mind, but that must be considered in the context of the modernisation programme of the whole of the British Transport Commission. I promise my hon. Friend that we are not stalling for the sake of stalling. Everything will be borne in mind when we come to make a decision on the Victoria tube, and I hope to make that decision as soon as we possibly can.
I agree that we should extend the length of stations in London because then we should he able to have longer trains and able to carry more people. Quite a number of extension works are going on in Central London and this is a direction in which we could help London transport a great deal. One of the things that greatly exercises my mind is how we are under-using the transport facilities which we already have in an area like London. We do not have a peak hour but sometimes a peak twenty minutes, and everybody complains that the trains are under-utilised at other times of the day.
If we could manage to stagger hours in London we should go far towards making travel much easier and more convenient. I have seen the chairman of the London Travel Committee. We shall have another shot at this problem—a really big drive. I am going with the chairman to see a number of people

especially in the Oxford Street area, to find out whether we can spread the load. Everybody wants to go home in the same period of a quarter of an hour. I have been to Oxford Circus, London Bridge and Liverpool Street and seen the trains draw in to crowded platforms. If we could spread things out for another twenty minutes or half an hour we could make travelling in London much more agreeable.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter asked whether work being done by the Transport Commission would take into account the view and wishes of Exeter City Council and the Devon River Board. I agree that this is a very important point. The Bill will give it the power, but the Commission has already discussed with the City Council and the River Board the work that it proposes to do, and as those two bodies have not objected, either formally or informally, I presume that the work will have their assent in principle anyway. The Commission has assured me that it will discuss the work in detail as well as in principle.

Mr. Dudley Williams: The important thing, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, is that there should not be any conflict about what should be done between the Transport Commission and other authorities. There have been disputes in the past about work at St. David's Bridge, and I should not like to see that conflict occur again.

Mr. Marples: I will make sure by contacting the Commission myself in the morning that my hon. Friend's view is taken into account. The Commission will certainly discuss in the greatest detail the work that it proposes to do with both the city council and the Devon River Board. I am sorry that the local authority and its Parliamentary agents did not get in touch with my hon. Friend, because he can always be relied upon to look after the interests of his constituents.
The same goes for towpaths, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Farnworth. The Commission has said that it will look sympathetically at any representations made in, a particular instance, and if the hon. Member has any instance in mind and


will send the details to me or to the Commission I will see that it is given consideration. I am among those who find walks on these towpaths most agreeable. Watford, for example, has a nice canal where many people go fishing, and the towpath provides a pleasant walk on a Saturday afternoon. I realise the benefit to be derived by the ordinary person and therefore I will pay great attention to any communication that the hon. Member sends to me.
I think that I have answered all the questions raised by hon. Members in the debate and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I was interested in the Minister's explanation in reply to the comments of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) about what accountants can do with figures. The right hon. Gentleman also tried to prove that ex-Ministers like my distinguished right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) were perhaps more susceptible to using figures to suit their own purposes. But the Minister did exactly that, because it is only a fortnight since he was using in the House to justify expenditure on the M.1 exactly the formula described by the hon. Member for Truro.
It may be that the figures supplied to the Minister proved his point to his own satisfaction, but he cannot have it both ways. He cannot justify expenditure by using those calculations a fortnight ago and then tonight cast doubt on the way the figures were drawn up. I am prepared to accept the Minister's explanation of a fortnight ago and to add that if all this money is saved by making good roads to ensure a free flow of traffic the right hon. Gentleman will have no greater support for that proposition than in Scotland. We shall be delighted if he applies that argument to the building of the new Forth Bridge and allows the traffic to use that road without the payment of tolls.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. G. Wilson: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) will appreciate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am having to stop the hon. Member for Edinburgh,

Leith (Mr. Hoy). There would be some difficulty in connecting the Forth Bridge with this Bill and, therefore, if the intervention of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) is also on that point, the intervention also will be out of order.

Mr. Wilson: I did not intend to relate my remarks to the Forth Bridge. I was about to observe that my comments applied to general principles in making these calculations.

Mr. Hoy: I was saying that the Minister himself used calculations a fortnight ago, perhaps quite rightly, to justify what was spent on the M.1, and that I had no objection if he used that formula in connection with the Forth Bridge. I will take the matter no further except to say that, like hon. Members opposite, we on this side of the House hope that some progress will be made soon and that a decision will be taken about the Victoria tube. If the Minister is able to reach a decision, it will certainly give satisfaction not only to both sides of the House but to the country as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 45.
Clause 45 seeks to relieve the Commission of its legal obligation arising out of the London and North-Western Railway Act, 1861. This obligation was to maintain a passenger station or stopping place with suitable buildings at Worsley, to provide attendance at such station and to stop any train at the station. I accept that it is not unreasonable for the British Transport Commission to seek release sooner or later from this 100-year-old obligation, but at present this arouses in my constituency justifiable fears and apprehensions.
This is particulary so with the Worsley Urban District Council, the authority for an area which is now the most populated part of the constituency of Farnworth which I have the honour to represent. In 1939, the urban district had a population of 26,000. At present, its population is about 40,000, and in 1971, it is estimated it will be about 50,000.
Until a few years ago there were five railway stations in the Worsley Urban District Council area—Walkden High Level, Walkden Low Level, Little Hulton, Ellenbrook and Worsley. This rapidly-growing area now has only two stations, and there appears to be a serious danger that even these will be closed. It is the old story of train services being hacked down to one-third or one-quarter of their pre-war frequency and the inevitable accelerated decline in the number of passengers. I do not argue that in all these cases there was no justification for the action taken, but the train services provided in recent years—only four or five trains per day each way—whilst road traffic congestion was getting worse, did not give the traffic potential a fair opportunity of showing itself.
The closing of Ellenbrook Station is difficult to understand. It is on the same line, and it was closed on 31st December, 1960, just two days prior to the introduction of an efficient and frequent diesel service. I understand that the number of passengers using Worsley station since the introduction of the diesel service on 2nd January has trebled. Would not the same have applied to Ellenbrook Station?
Ellenbrook itself is poorly served by bus, and I want to press the Minister and the British Transport Commission seriously to consider re-opening the station there. I am informed that a few hundred colliers from Hindley, Leigh and Wigan used this station daily, but as their tickets were not booked at Ellen-brook the station receipts did not reflect that traffic.
Every one praises the new diesel service on this line, and the Commission is to be commended for it. The Commission gets more than its share of criticism, much of it unfair. Her Majesty's Government have a large share of the responsibility, because their railway financial policy has made regard for providing adequate public facilities very secondary, indeed, and their dismantling of road-rail co-ordination has had a seriously adverse effect on the railways.
My constituents, including the Worsley U.D.C.. are apprehensive that Worsley Station will go the same way as Ellen-brook, Little Hulton and Walkden Low Level stations. In last week's Farnworth and Worsley Journal, the commendable

local newspaper circulating in my constituency, there appeared a very good British Railways advertisement which said:
Road congestion! This is your line "—
indicating there the railway line; no doubt the one passing through Worsley—
Avoid the strain. Travel by train
That is excellent publicity, but its readers must find it rather incongruous when they know that steps are being taken, or considered, to close the only two remaining stations in this rapidly-growing area.
A few weeks ago I had a most friendly meeting with representatives of British Railways. They informed me that no decision had been taken to close Worsley Station; that what they wanted was to be able, if the need arose, to deal with Worsley Station through the medium of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, the procedure used in the case of other stations. In view of the experience in this area my constituents cannot view this procedure with any confidence.
Worsley station provides an opportunity for Manchester commutors. I am sure the Minister will realise that this area is part of one of the really great conurbations. There is an opportunity here to encourage car commutors to become rail commutors, by leaving their vehicles at Worsley station. The blitzed-site car parks charging Is. 6d. a day are rapidly disappearing in Manchester, and the charge at the new Manchester underground car park is Ss. a day. A coordinated publicity campaign on the part of British Railways and the local town council could do much, I am sure, to bring back the railway commutor traffic.
This is a problem affecting not only the Manchester area, but all similar large conurbations. I appeal to the Minister and to the Commission to see that Worsley station is kept open, and to consider reopening Ellenbrook station with this new diesel service line I am sure that the results would be quite gratifying.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Marples: The House will appreciate the very reasonable way, and the very fair way, in which the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) has


presented his case. There is no doubt that the area is a great conurbation. More people live within a certain mileage of Manchester—I am not quite sure what it is—than in any other part of the country—

Mr. Thornton: Fifty miles.

Mr. Marples: Within 50 miles, yes It has a greater population than any other part of the country, including London. I believe that some of the road improvements being made up there will help the area a great deal—but I must not talk about that, because the subject of this debate is railways.
This is a very curious case. Normally, a station is closed through the consultative committee procedure, but Worsley is in a different category. Worsley station is on the line running between Eccles and Wigan. The land for the railway was acquired from the Duke of Bridgwater's trustees, and the provision of the station was one of the conditions of the sale. That dates back to 1861. The obligations of the railway company in respect of the station—that is to say, both the contractual and the statutory
Obligations passed to the British Transport Commission. The Commission is therefore required, by Statute, to provide the station, with attendants, and to stop trains daily except on Sundays.
It is clear that the facilities in question are provided for the general public, but I think that when the trustees originally imposed this condition, they had in mind that it would be convenient for the trustees. It is doubtful whether the facilities are justifiable economically, and consideration may at any time be given to the possibility of closing the station. That is not possible while these legal obligations remain in force, so Clause 45 proposes to remove this statutory restriction. The majority of stations do not have such a statutory restriction.
Even so, the users of this station at Worsley would still have their normal rights under the procedure of the transport users' consultative committee, and the station would not be closed unless that procedure was followed—as it was followed with Westerham and other stations. All Clause 45 does is to put the Commission in the same position with regard to Worsley that it is in with regard

to the great majority of stations where no statutory obligations exist, to make effective use of the consultative committee procedure.
The Commission's view—and, if I may say, mine also—is that this procedure is the appropriate one to deal with proposals for withdrawals of services or facilities by the Commission, and is in accordance with the intention of Parliament as expressed in Section 6 of the Transport Act, 1947. All the Clause does is to place Worsley in just the same position as that of the majority of railway stations, and those using it still have their rights under the procedure passed by this House as recently as 1947.
The hon. Member mentioned the diesel service introduced on 1st January between Manchester and Liverpool, which passes over a section of the line and said there might be an improvement at Worsley. Even though we extinguish these legal obligations, if there is a worth while improvement at this station I am quite certain that the Commission would not close it down—

Mr. Ellis Smith: There has already been a great improvement.

Mr. Marples: Yes. The Commission could decide that, and I am sure that the consultative committee would go into the matter carefully. This is an obsolete legal obligation—

Mr. Walter Monslow: Assuming that this legal barrier were removed and the consultative committee agreed that the station should remain open, what power has the Minister in relation to such a recommendation? Is it not a fact that the Government's general policy, expressed by directive, was that uneconomic units must close?

Mr. Marples: No, the Government do not interfere. The Commission has the consultative committee procedure if it wants to close lines, and the Government have given no directive on that side.
My point is that Worsley should be on the same terms and conditions as any other station. I think that it is fair to ask the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) why Worsley should have better conditions


—or different conditions—than Old Trafford, Stretford or Trafford Park. The consultative committee should go into this very carefully, and take into account local circumstances and the introduction of diesels. There is no doubt that in some cases the diesel service has been very advantageous for traffics.
Neither the Worsley Urban District Council nor any other authority has petitioned against the Bill, so I think it not unreasonable that the House should accept this Clause. The Bridgwater Estates have not appealed against the Bill, but as they get compensation under subsection (4) of the Clause it would have been surprising if they had objected. I think that the House will agree that it is an anachronism that a station like this should have a statutory restriction of this nature, imposed as long ago as 1861 when the railways acquired the land from the Duke of Bridgwater's trustees. The hon. Member has been so reasonable in presenting his case that I hope he will not press this point.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I hope that the House will not take exception to this Clause, but as the Minister is dealing here with anachronistic and out-of-date legislation may I ask him whether in the new Bill to be brought before the House in due course he will deal generally with such limitations of a commercial character?

Mr. Marples: That is an interesting point, and the answer is "Yes". However, I have already looked at some of the things in the new Bill that we are to bring in, and I must say that, from the legal point of view, the Bill is so complex that I am beginning to be terrified of the Committee stage. Unless hon. Members opposite really agreed to help us, it could go on for years—there are so many contentious points in it. But the short answer is that I will consider that point.

Mr. Thornton: In view of the Minister's statement and assurance, I do not propose to press this Motion to a Division. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clauses 15, 16 and 17, and the Third, Fourth and Fifth Schedules.
These Clauses and Schedules all relate to the closing to navigation of certain waterways. and it is to this aspect of the British Transport Commission's policy that my hon. Friends and I object. Ever since the Commission became the owner of a large part of the inland waterway system of this country about fourteen years ago, it has sought year by year to divest itself of responsibility to maintain the waterways open to traffic. Year by year the Commission has come to the House with a Bill seeking our authority to close certain parts of the waterways system. This year, in the Bill now before us, it is asking for authority to close to navigation nine stretches of canal, in all about 32 miles long.
In favour of proposed closures the Transport Commission has always produced some or all of the following arguments. The first is that on the particular waterways there is little or no commercial traffic. The second is that, by maintaining them open to navigation, financial loss is incurred. The third is that the canal in question is either dangerous or a nuisance. The fourth is that the land is required for some other use. Always in the past these arguments have prevailed, and I have no doubt that they will be advanced today in support of the closures here proposed.
My hon. Friends and I believe that there is a powerful consideration which the Commission, being primarily a transport undertaking, never takes properly into account, namely, that there may well be other uses for a canal apart from purely commercial transport Furthermore, these other uses, if properly developed, might solve the financial problem and enable us to preserve our heritage of waterways

Mr. Monslow: Will the hon. Member agree that we shall not be likely to solve the problem unless we have co-ordination of road, rail and canal?

Mr. Atkins: If the hon. Member will forgive me, I think he has missed the point. The Transport Commission always argues that commercial traffic


alone is not sufficient in many cases to make a profit on the waterway and. therefore, the waterway has to be closed. What we argue is that there are other uses which, if developed, might help to solve the financial problem, these other uses having nothing whatever to do with transport as such.
I shall not expand on the amenity value of the canals, which cannot be measured in £ s. d., but I should mention that many of them have a very great amenity value. It is my belief that the more we develop this country, the more houses, roads, factories and power stations we build, the more careful we ought to be to preserve the amenities we have. But, as I say, the Transport Commission does not take very much into account these other uses such as water supply, drainage, fishing, boating, and many others.
Of course, the Transport Commission cannot really be expected to pay much attention to the other uses because it is primarily a transport undertaking. This is one reason why my hon. Friends and I, together no doubt with many hon. Members opposite, were so delighted by the proposals of my right hon. Friend in his White Paper Cmnd. 1248 to change the ownership of the canal system. The new body he proposes, the Inland Waterways Authority, will take account of all the other possibilities and will, we sincerely hope, develop all the other uses of canals which have been neglected in the past.

Mr. Mapp: Did not the hon. Member read further in the White Paper and realise that it envisages what he is speaking of but goes on to contemplate that a considerable subsidy would be necessary in connection with waterways operations?

Mr. Atkins: There is a considerable subsidy now being paid. What we hope is that the subsidy will gradually become smaller and eventually be extinguished because the new body will raise more revenue from other sources which the Transport Commission, with its eyes fixed on the transport problem, could not do in the past.
It is because of this change of ownership that we are worried about the proposals in the Bill. No one knows when the new authority will become the owner

of the waterways, whether it will be this year, next year, or some later date. I suppose it is a reasonable guess that the Transport Commission will continue to own them for, perhaps, a couple of years The question we ask ourselves is this: is it right that, so shortly before it transfers the waterways system to another body, the Transport Commission should change the nature of its asset?
But for one thing, my answer would be a definite "No". The Commission ought to preserve the system as it is, handing it over intact to the new authority to leave the new authority to decide what it will do. The one contrary fact is that, as I understand it, all the proposals in the Bill have been scrutinised by the Inland Waterways Redevelopment Advisory Committee, a body set up by my right hon. Friend's predecessor which is independent both of him and of the Commission. I think I am right in saying that the Advisory Committee has reported that these proposals are in the best interests not just of the Commission but of the country as a whole. I would very much like my right hon. Friend to say whether this is so.
Even if it is so, the possibility remains that the Inland Waterways Authority might take a view different from that taken by the Transport Commission or that taken by the parent committee. This is where I want my right hon. Friend's guidance. The proposals in the Bill are designed to extinguish the right of navigation over certain waterways. If they are allowed to pass and the Transport Commission or its successors wish to change their minds and restore navigation, can this be done without another Act of Parliament? I appreciate that a right to navigation cannot be given without an Act of Parliament. As things stand at the moment, if I present myself at one of these waterways in a boat and demand to be allowed through, the Transport Commission must let me go along whether it likes it or not. I am not asking for that position to be restored without an Act. Obviously, it could not be.
What I want to know is this. Supposing that the Commission or its successors say, "This was a mistake and we think that navigation along these stretches of waterway should be restored", can they restore it and allow navigation? If they can, then I think a slightly different


complexion is put on the problem, and my hon. Friends and I would be helped in making up our minds.
Our argument is that we do not want the British Transport Commission to do anything which will prejudice its successors. If the Commission or its successors can reverse any recent action taken by the Commission, then matters will not be so badly prejudiced, and, perhaps, my hon. Friends and I will be able to withdraw our opposition. On the other hand, if that is not so, then I think we must continue. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will give us guidance on the point.

7.54 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I listened with great attention and considerable pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins). I realise that the way he worded his Motion for an Instruction was such as to allow it to be selected rather than mine, and I am happy to support him on this occasion. He in his turn, I am sure, is grateful to me for spotting early enough the desirability of making it possible for us to have this debate. Also, I think the Minister will be pleased for he will have noticed what an equable frame of mind we are all in and that we ask from him only something very simple, namely, that the hands of the successors to the British Transport Commission should not be tied. If he cannot confirm that that is so, then I say at once that I should propose to divide the House on the matter.
We had a very interesting debate on 4th December, 1959, on the whole of the very issue we are now discussing. The House was then unanimous in supporting the Report of the Bows Committee and the contents of the Government's White Paper at that time. In the resolution we adopted, the House went on to say:
…in view of the continued rapid deterioration of much of the inland waterways system, urges Her Majesty's Government to announce its further decisions as quickly as possible.
The Government have announced their further decisions, but at the moment they announce them we are faced with this Private Bill which asks for further closures.
Cmnd. Paper 1248 on the Reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings has been read and is well

understood by everyone. There is to be a new body set up, and we are told that there is to be some financial support made available as well. By and large, if there has to be change of this kind, it pleases the majority of us. We say "So far, so good". But, when we look at the proposals in the Bill we are now discussing, that nine sections of canal should be closed so that no navigation may be allowed upon them, then we say to ourselves that there is something wrong. Why the hurry? That is our question to the Minister.
The hon. Member for Merton and Morden gave his views about what he felt was in the mind of the British Transport Commission, about how it argued and how it thought. I will put it in another way. The argument seems to run as follows. These canals have been neglected and they were neglected, not by the Commission, long before the Commission inherited them. Therefore, says the Commission, they are not navigable. There are no boats upon them. There is no income. Therefore, say the Commission, they must be abandoned or, as it is called, redeveloped—which means virtually destroyed. All this is to be done at a cost very much higher than that of putting the canals back into full use, health and vigour so as to allow for all the other eight, nine or ten uses apart from the strictly commercial one which the Commission has in mind, uses which will bring new income, amenity, health, sport and joy to our people.
We are not talking about moats and ditches. We are talking about a very remarkable fragment of eighteenth century England. We are talking about a national park which takes up almost no space. Why should we allow it to be spoiled for lack of patience? It seems to us that there is too much impatience. After all, the Birmingham sections which were to be closed by last year's Bill were taken out of that Bill but they have now returned and they are put back again.
The Minister's Advisory Committee has done splendid work, and I know that it has looked at all these matters. It is independent of the Minister. But it is not the only body which has shown an interest in these sections of canal. The enthusiasm which exists among people who have taken new interest in our inland waterways has meant that the


most careful, almost yard-by-yard, inspection has taken place.
Before I forget it, I wonder whether the Minister can tell me if one fragment of information given to me is correct, namely, that although between 2 million and 3 million people fish in our canals and pay a few shillings a year for the right, only £7,000 a year is received by the British Transport Commission in angling licence fees. I should like to know whether that is true. If the Minister has not got the figures now, perhaps he could let me know at some other time. If this is true, something must be wrong with the accountancy. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), who has fished all over the country, looks astonished at the suggestion that only £7,000 is received in a year. Not all his colleagues and friends refuse to pay for their licences.

Mr. Jack Jones: They do not have the opportunity.

Dr. Stross: Exactly. If the Minister can get the information, I shall be interested. I object to what is proposed to be done, and my objection is shared in all quarters of the House, because if too many branches are lopped off too quickly the trunk may die.
With reference to financial matters, the British Transport Commission has not got all the wisdom and knowledge in the world. Here I am not attacking the British Transport Commission; I would not dream of doing so. The Commission has inherited this situation. It has not perpetrated this evil of neglect. The evil has existed for many years. At the same time, I should like the Minister to satisfy us that a mistaken action will not be taken on this occasion.
As an example of a mistaken view, the British Transport Commission declared that the Stratford-on-Avon canal would cost over £120,000 to close. The truth is that the National Trust put up £20,000 in order to save it, and the Inland Waterways Society, a voluntary body, found the other £20,000. Incidentally, I must confess that I have an interest in that body, for I was so sympathetic towards the idea that it cost me £80. In fact, the canal has been saved by £40,000—one-third of what was thought to be the cost of closure. It

will be a beautiful canal, an amenity and a joy for everyone in the area.
We need from the Minister an assurance that when the successor body takes over it will be possible to restore these canals. I have had many communications on all aspects relating to the nine sections of the waterways. I hope the Minister will not tell us that the canals must be closed and talk about great financial losses. There has been financial loss as a result of the long neglect of sections of canal, but that is not the only part of our transport system that loses money. Do we not subsidise our airfields by £10 million a year? Does not shipping get some subsidy? When we finish this business tonight are we not going on to discuss the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill by which it is proposed to subsidise the cost of trawlers?
Do road users—and the Minister is a great expert on this subject—pay directly for the police and rescue services when accidents occur on the roads? Do they contribute directly to the £500 million loss arising from congestion caused by road users? Of course, they do not. Here we are dealing with a trifle, and yet we are considering something which we cannot afford to lose. Therefore, I ask the Minister not to talk to us about financial losses, for they are trifling.
I do not propose to refer in detail to the different sections of the canal, although I have all the details in my possession. I intend to end as I began, and ask the Minister to give us the assurance for which we asked. Otherwise we shall divide the House on this issue.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I am sure that in all parts of the House we have enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) speak on this subject of which he has such a wide knowledge. We appreciated in particular his concept of a national park that takes up no space.
We are most anxious to have from the Minister an assurance that the successors to the Commission will be empowered to reopen navigation if they so wish, for from navigation stem all the other advantages of the inland waterways system. There has been reference to angling. I have not the figures with me this evening, but the hon. Member for


Stoke-on-Trent, Central mentioned a very small figure as the profit accruing to the British Transport Commission from angling. I can tell the House that the Kent River Board, which comes outside the British Transport Commission system, makes a handsome profit from angling. It is a very desirable feature, but, as every angler knows, unless there is some movement of boats to keep the waterways clear, angling becomes spoilt. Therefore, navigation of some sort is an essential first step.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) said that the British Transport Commission had been looking at the canals exclusively as a transport undertaking and had not been considering the pleasure boat aspect. I must take him up on that because, as I understand it, from figures recently given to me by the Inland Waterways section of the Transport Commission its own pleasure fleet has increased considerably in the last few years, and, indeed, it is taking active strides towards improving its own fleet. However, unless the Transport Commission can give a firm assurance to those commercial firms which are trying to maintain hire boats that canals will be open to such firms for many years to come, they will be very chary of putting in more capital to expand their fleets.
Today the cost of a really satisfactory four-berth boat is in the region of £2,000. We all admire the Water Baby class brought out by the Transport Commission, a small two-berth boat which presumably costs a great deal less and does a good job in maintaining clearways. But the basic point is that unless the waterways are maintained and kept open for navigation, the other advantages which can he derived from the waterways will fall by the wayside.
If we allow Clauses 15, 16 and 17 to go through, Clause 18 will become absolutely worthless. It gives the Commission power to make various agreements with other statutory bodies, and so on, with a view to maintaining the residual amenities, the sale of water and SO on. But it would be worthless to leave the British Transport Commission with these powers, because in the course of years they will become atrophied unless some navigation is maintained. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance

that the new canal authority will be free to reopen navigation.
I should like a second assurance from my right 'hon. Friend if it is possible, namely, that if there should be another British Transport Commission Bill next year we shall see no reference in it to the closure of waterways. The British Transport Commission's Bill last year contained a number of inland waterways proposals, and I am glad to see that this year there is nothing like the proposal for water extraction from the Oxford canal that appeared in last year's Bill.
With the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, I deplore the fact that the Birmingham branches, Which were taken out of last year's Bill, should have been brought in again. if it were possible to shelve the decision for a year, surely it might be possible to shelve it until such time as the new authority is fully in control.
I do not wish to be thought to be in any way critical of the wonderful work that has been done by the Parham Committee concerned with the development of the inland waterways. It has done a wonderful work, and it would be absurd of us in this House, who have knowledge only of certain sections of these waterways, to criticise its work. We appreciate the recommendations made by the Committee, and I think that everybody responsible for waterways is grateful to it for the work it has done. It still remains true, however, that the Parham Committee reported some considerable time before the White Paper, Cmd. 1248, came out, and had the Committee known what the White Paper was to contain it might very well have taken a different view on some of the recommendations which led to the Clauses of this Bill.
We understand that the Committee was united on these recommendations, but there might well have been a minority report had the Committee known that the Minister, acting on the advice he was given, was going to set up a new waterways body. That might well have been so had the Committee known that the Minister had decided to separate the canals from the B.T.C., in which case those of us who want to see a unified waterways system maintained might have been disappointed, but I doubt whether the Committee would have been


so united had it known the contents of the White Paper when it reported and made recommendations which led to these Clauses.
With my hon. Friends, I am most anxious to withdraw this Motion if we can get a proper assurance from the Minister that in future the new authority will be free to reinstate the waterways, and if we can have the second assurance that there will be no Clauses of this sort in next year's British Transport Commission Bill.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I want to be very brief, but I want to ask the Minister one or two pertinent questions. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is a very ardent cyclist, who, fed up with the rush and turmoil of London traffic, uses a cycle to get to and from his place of work. Some of us are also fed up with the rush and turmoil of industry, and, perhaps, the rush and turmoil of this House, and would like to use our waterways for a different purpose from that so far mentioned. I include myself among 3–4 million decent, honest-to-God Britishers who like to do that.
We like to do a spot of quiet meditation alongside our canals, and I should like the Minister to go to a section of the Bridgwater Canal near where he was born. He knows where it is. In fact, on a Saturday in the fishing season one can see 1,600 or 2,000 men on one section sitting peacefully, hurting nobody and doing nobody any harm, quietly enjoying that peace of mind which it is essential that workers should have in order to face the boss on Monday morning. The right hon. Gentleman cannot compute the value of angling in fostering the peace of mind needed in industry today. Far too many people are anxious to spend their time at engineering mischief, in attending pubs and so on. and designing mischief for the Government and even for my own party. But there are millions of decent people who prefer to spend their leisure on the canals. I regularly fish when I have the opportunity. It is a good thing to do. One can meditate about the problems which we have been discussing here. Often we reach different conclusions from those we reach in the Lobbies when we

have time to think about the problems in peace and quiet.
I suggest to the Minister that he should ensure that this new body which he is setting up will pay some regard to meeting the needs of those millions of people who want to have these facilities maintained. Too many of our rivers are being closed because of pollution. There are very many men wanting peace which can be obtained in angling, and more than ever before millions of men are seeking peace, repose and rest at weekends and in their leisure hours, and who have less space in which to exercise themselves. More and more people like racing down the M.1, though I do not know what M.1 stands for. It seems to me to represent the "Mad Isaacs" part of the country, whereas other people like to get away from the industrial towns and on to the waterways and seek a little peace.
Not far from the birthplace of the right hon. Gentleman on the Bridgwater Canal, I was astonished last year to meet a party of touring Americans who had come up by a converted barge all the way from Banbury. How they got there I do not know, but there they were. I was so surprised that I had a chat with them. They pulled up and went to a local hotel, and the Americans told me that they were against the idea of chasing round Britain in a single-decker bus with all the dust, dirt and diesel engine fumes, and they had therefore gone all the way by barge and were going back to Banbury.
These people are worthy of consideration. I will not go into the question of the value of the canals from the commercial point of view, but I remember seeing some men with a barge loaded with pottery from Stoke-on-Trent for a Manchester exhibition, pushing it through a tunnel with their feet. It is an old-fashioned method of operating a barge in small spaces where neither man nor horse can go.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Legging it.

Mr. Jones: That is a new term. In any case, it is not a job that I would want.

Mrs. Slater: It is an old term.

Mr. Jones: Although part of the commercial side is of great value, it is quite


true that the waterways must be kept navigable so as to clean the weeds and to keep them from silting up and so that people are able to use them. There are a number of other uses for the water, such as for cattle and for farming, for industry, and a thousand and one things, but I am more particularly concerned with all those people represented by the 80 thousand signatures to a petition which I brought to this House four years ago.
Yesterday we were arguing about defence and about the cost of this and that, while for less than the cost of one bomber, without the atomic warhead, we could put the waterways right. For less than the cost of one bomber, which seeks to destroy or perhaps to defend the British way of life, the whole of the waterways of this country could be put right. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) was quite right when he complained that there was a very small revenue from these waterways. That is true, and very often the rights to a pitch for fishing on the canals are held by some society in an area which draws the membership fees which do not find their way into the coffers of the British Transport Commission.
If the anglers of this country had a licence to fish anywhere in Britain in any canal—and they would pay a reasonable price for reasonable facilities—these fees would help to pay the cost of maintaining the canal.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Ship canal.

Mr. Jones: I will not talk about the Ship Canal; I have talked about that before. That stinking morass is navigable but not fishable. That is all the more reason why men who live in the vicinity of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, who lives near the Canal, and who have to put up with the stench and stink all the week think they have a right to get a little peace on the canal banks by fishing. The right hon. Gentleman is supposed to be a sportsman; I understand that he has certain associations with sport, and if there is anything in that I can only hope that he will come to the help of these people.
One could also mention child delinquency and the number of children who

are kept away from the peaceful pursuit of fishing because of the lack of opportunity. Whenever I have found a boy who would like to go fishing, I have tried to find him a tin of maggots and a place to fish, because while fishing he would be doing no harm to anybody and he would learn to be a peaceful type of boy, growing up in the way we want. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what these Clauses are meant to do, and suggest that he should get away from the economics of the matter and think more about methods of improving the amenities. There are other profitable things in this country, such as the peace of mind of contented workmen going to their work in industry prepared to do that which is right, provided that the Government do the right thing by them.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am sure that the House agrees that we have had a most interesting debate, with a high degree of unity shown on both sides of the House. I am sure that in his many occupations my right hon. Friend does not have much time to give to this little corner of his empire, but he will have seen how much interest there is in it, what unity there is and how well that augurs for the future.
If the House will forgive me, I must examine my conscience for a few minutes. As the House knows, I am a member of the Inland Waterways Redevelopment Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) pointed out, these closures were passed unanimously by the Committee and put to the Transport Commission. I shall immediately be asked what right I have to criticise them here if I did not take the trouble to submit a minority report, and I agree that I stand on the weakest possible ground in that respect. But I must say that on all these closures there were long and heated debates within the Committee about what should be done. In the end, we agreed to let the closures pass.
But this was done before the end of October, when we did not know what the Government's policy would be. For all we knew, the Government would smash the whole system to smithereens. Had we known what the Government would do, then there might have been different decisions in the Committee, or


some minority reports. I am in considerable difficulty tonight. Out of loyalty to the Committee, and to the decisions which we took unanimously, I cannot vote in a Division, but it is right that the House should realise the feelings which were going through my mind then, and still go through it, as a result of the present situation.
I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will give some assurances, but I am a little perplexed, knowing some of the details, as to which assurances he can give which can be effective, because it seems to me that once a local authority drops a bridge over a navigation it will be extremely difficult ever to that bridge pulled down again and re-erected again to a navigable height. With the best will in the world, we must face the situation that an Act of Parliament will exist which will allow people to do certain things, and they will have two years in which to do them. Nevertheless, I have great faith in my right hon. Friend and I am sure that he will help us if he can.
I should not like my right hon. Friend or the House to feel that these closures have not produced many criticisms in the country on various aspects. For example, whatever we may say about closing the Dearne and Dove Canal up to the source, it should certainly not be closed from Manvers Colliery, from where it joins the main system about three miles away. There was an agreement of a disgusting character between the National Coal Board and the Commission a few years ago, whereby it was agreed to take the coal from the colliery, which previously had successfully been taken by canal, by some other means. I should like the possibility of that traffic being restored in the future, but if bridges are built and irreparable harm is done in that section, I doubt whether it will be.

Mr. George Jeger: Is it not a fact that that canal at present is not being used at all?

Mr. Grant-Ferris: It is not used for navigation now. The lower part to which I have referred was used regularly three or four years ago, and above it has not been used for a longer period. There are strong feelings, and claims are made that it could be used for com-

merce in the future, but I will not go into those details now because the Committee reached a decision. As I did not put in a minority report, I must loyally accept the Committee's decision, but I am sure that people outside the House, especially, will read carefully what we say, and that is why I wanted to make these remarks.
I do not want to detain the House any longer. Having made these few observations, I must leave it to hon. and right hon. Members to decide what they think best to do in the light of what the Minister said. If they are helped in reaching that decision by anything that I have said, I think that I have spoken fairly.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I support the Motion, and personally, I shall want very strong assurances from the Minister before I agree to its withdrawal I have been engaged on this task for many years and I recollect the debate which we had on the Heddiscoe Cut, which was the first of these discussions. On that occasion we were able to reach an arrangement by which the Cut was not closed. That was a great advantage to people on one of the most frequented of the inland waterways. I am not much concerned about anything that happens as long as we are assured that until the new authority is set up no further inland waterway will be closed. One of the difficulties which has confronted us has been the way in which little bits here and there have been closed, so that it has become increasingly difficult to maintain a connected system throughout the country.
Since the Second World War the inland waterways have been discovered by many people who want to get away from the smell and dust of the main roads on the days when they can go out for leisure. These great waterways, which had the misfortune to be taken over by their own worst enemies, the railways, are the only way in which we can get away from the smoke, grime and petrol fumes which make most of our main highways an insufferable form of affliction on people who want to get away for a holiday.
have referred to Heddiscoe Cut. I hope that we shall have an assurance that until the new Inland Waterways Authority has been set up there will be


no further closures or withdrawals of traffic facilities along these waterways.
I almost get seasick below Teddington Lock, but I have been a traveller on inland waterways since 1908, when a colleague of mine, in a school which we both served, bought an old ship's whaler and during the summer months we used to tow this boat from Mortlake to Oxford. In those days it was very difficult to navigate above Oxford, because there was only one lock. In more recent years I have made the trip from Hampton Court to Lechlade and it is the most peaceful form of holiday that one can take, for one is away from the smoke and most of the petrol fumes unless one happens to be unlucky enough to get behind one of the new motor tugs that are beginning to operate on the Thames. I know of no more peaceful holiday than to navigate the inland waterways.
I am glad to observe the increasing number of people who take this form of recreation and during July, August and September spend their spare time with their families navigating the inland waterways, whether they be canalised rivers or canals. I sincerely hope that the Minister will not agree to any further legalised closures of any of these waterways.
About 150 years ago there was a fine set of waterways in this country. Unfortunately, they fell into the clutches of the railways, and the railways, fearing the competition which the canals would offer to their systems, steadily closed them.

Mr. G. Wilson: That is the second time the right hon. Gentleman has said that. Does he not think that the fact that when the canals were built they were only large enough for a person with a horse and cart had something to do with it? They were very narrow, and did not carry a sufficient load to compete with the bigger forms of transport.

Mr. Ede: That was one of the excuses rather than one of the reasons for getting them closed. If they had been properly developed as the boats increased in size, there is no doubt that today we would have had as fine a system of canals as there is in France.

Mr. Wilson: I cannot remember the exact figures, but does the right hon. Gentleman know that the average rise

on the flat coastal areas of the northern parts of Europe, in Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, and so on, is about 2 ft. per 15 miles, whereas with us it is about 10 ft. per 2 miles?

Mr. Ellis Smith: There is not a lock on the Bridgwater Canal.

Mr. Ede: For years there has been a plan far a canal system on the 350 ft. contour line, which would completely destroy the argument of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson). I do not regard it as a programme which is immediately feasible, but on the 350 ft. contour line it would be possible to link up the canals so that we could have as fine a canal system as any country in the world.
Increased interest in the waterways in recent years has been one of the social phenomena of which we should take notice—

Mr. Wilson: I am sorry. I made an error. The average vertical lift of canals in Europe is 1 ft. 8 ins. per mile and with us in this country it is 10 ft. per mile.

Mr. Ede: That does not concern me at all. The hon. Gentleman was concerned with the railways that overcame very considerable difficulties and gave us some of the greatest architecture and civil engineering probably in the world. If people are determined to do things, with the help of our engineers, they can always be done. Sometimes the efforts of the engineers are hampered by the lawyers, but when the engineers get control even the lawyers cannot hamper them from doing magnificent work.
There is no more pleasant holiday than one spent on our waterways, and I speak as one who for several years navigated these inland waterways. I know how excellent are the conditions under which they could be worked if there were sufficient traffic on them to enable the various locks and other mechanical devices to be kept in good order. The increase in the use made of the River Thames for this purpose is one of the astounding things of post-war years.
Commercial traffic has almost disappeared from the river, but there are more privately-owned motor vessels being operated upon it than ever before, and every year sees their number increasing. I am convinced that were facilities more


generally available, and the locks kept in proper order, the number of people who would derive rest, refreshment and recreation from holidays on these waterways would be quite astounding. As was said by one hon. Member, the efforts of the inland waterways section of the Transport Commission to persuade people to use these waterways for pleasure purposes reveals what it is possible to achieve in this way. I hope that the Minister will tell us that no further closure of these inland waterways is to take place until the new Inland Waterways Authority he has agreed to establish has been given an opportunity of showing what it can do.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) in asking that this Motion shall be accepted by the Government, or that we shall be given a pledge that in Select Committee this provision may be so restricted in its plan of operation that it shall not come into force before the new Authority has been set up.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I have every sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and with all the hon. Members who have spoken for this Motion, but I should like to take them for a short stroll some weekend down the side of this stretch of canalway. which is in my constituency.
Along with them, I can appreciate the beauty which water can bring to the countryside. I have every sympathy with those who desire to go boating at weekends and find there is no water available close to where they reside. I also have every sympathy with those who go fishing. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), who has now left the Chamber, spends many weekends, as he has done for years, indulging in that wonderful sport, seeing how big are the fish he can catch and how small those he can throw back. This stretch of canal is in such a dilapidated condition that, if any hon. Member who has spoken in favour of the Motion were to visit it, he would say that the Motion is at least twenty years too late.

Dr. Stross: Which stretch of canal?

Mr. Wainwright: It is the stretch between the end of the Borough of Barnsley and Swinton.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Will the hon. Member say where this stretch of water is?

Mr. Wainwright: It is in my constituency. It begins at the boundary of Barnsley and continues to Swinton.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: In the Dearne Valley?

Mr. Wainwright: Yes. It is a long time since any boats were seen upon that water. In spite of the fact that I have every sympathy with the point of view put forward by all those who have supported the Motion, I want the Minister to accept the Bill as it stands.
For many years local authorities in the area have been wanting a kind of by-pass which would be away from the centre of their towns. In a sense it would be a secondary road which would take all the traffic from the centres of Wombwell and Wath and ease the burden of traffic on those towns. In the streets of those towns traffic is congested. There are shops on either side and shoppers have great difficulty in doing their shopping in safety.
On this canal there are several locks which are in a very dilapidated condition and are unworkable. There are also hump back bridges which are a danger to the motorist. The danger is such that one has to be careful when driving a car over them at even 10 m.p.h. They were built for horse-drawn traffic and are not suitable for present day motor traffic. Those bridges are in bad condition and are due for repair. One or two have had to be propped up in order to carry the amount of traffic that goes over them and most of them cannot carry heavy vehicles.
I hope that, in this instance, the Minister will accept the conditions that have been laid down by hon. Members on both sides of the House on this issue. In any event, if hon. Members want to take it to a vote I hope that the Minister will resist them. I shall certainly go into the Lobby against them on this occasion because this waterway is really nonexistent and had right hon. and hon. Members seen it I am certain they would not have spoken in favour of it being kept open as they have done this evening.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Marples: We have had an interesting and very good-humoured debate, most hon. Members feeling passionately about inland waterways either from the fishing or boating points of view. I will deal with the points raised during the course of the debate to the best of my ability.
The hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) is quite right. Inland waterways and canals should each be treated on its own merits. Some are extremely fine for one purpose and others are no use at all for that purpose. Some of these canals which are to be closed down will be serving their most useful purpose after they have been converted, whereas at present they are not very useful. Concerning the Bentley Canal, the local authority wishes to eliminate an unsatisfactory bridge and to incorporate part of the site as a tree belt in the general development of the area as playing fields, housing estates, etc. As for the Ashton Canal, the local authority wishes to deal with a road bridge and has agreed to take over the canal site. At Bradley Locks, part of the site is to be incorporated in a school and housing development. It is certainly true that canals vary.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) made a passionate plea for fishermen, which I respect. He mentioned certain canals near my own birthplace. I know them very well because I used to fish in them for very small fish when I was a young boy. I have been to those canals since. Nothing could live in them now, and I doubt whether anything could sail in them. I crossed the Manchester Ship Canal last Friday over the Thelwall Viaduct, which is a magnificent example of engineering. I was terrified in case I should fall into the Manchester Ship Canal, since because of the pollution I doubted whether I should have got out alive. We try to distinguish between canals which serve a useful amenity purpose and those which do not. This is a crucial distinction we ought to make much more sharply pointed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins), in a very reasonable speech, asked me a number of questions. The House feels passionately on this issue. As it was my proposal that inland waterways should be completely severed from the British

Transport Commission, I hope the hon. Member will believe my intentions are strictly honourable. Therefore, I ought to start with a fund of good will which I hope I shall not dissipate tonight—although I am sure it will be dissipated in time when my hon. Friends do not get all their own way. My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden pointed out that canals could be used for amenity purposes, and could be used for water supply and drainage. That is true. As I have said, it depends on the merits and assessment of each individual canal which should be used for the best possible purpose. That is my view.
My hon. Friend did ask me about the change of ownership which is coming in the inland waterways. I believe that most of the anxiety is that the new body which is being set up should not be prejudiced or handicapped by anything that is in the Bill. I can see that. We should look at this very carefully. The Government laid down an interim policy in Cmnd. Paper 676. These were the Government proposals following the Bowes Report on Inland Waterways and presented to Parliament in February, 1959. That White Paper says that for a trial period the Government would test the praticability of redeveloping redundant canals. For that purpose and in order to make an assessment, a committee was set up to look into the matter. If the committee were to recommend that a canal should be closed, private legislation would be introduced in order to carry that into effect. The Commission has therefore acted on those lines. The Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) spoke has recommended unanimously to me that these particular canals should be closed, and therefore the Commission seeks statutory powers for so doing.
I wish to say this to my hon. Friends. Once the navigation rights are extinguished by law, they will remain extinguished until reinstated by law. In other words, a statutory right will have gone. But navigation which is permissive and not mandatory is allowable. I do not wish to confuse the House in any way, but if the Commission gets permission to close these canals and they had not been opened again by the time the new body took over, it could reopen them if


it wished. The Commission received from Parliament permission to close a canal in Wales, but it still allows pleasure boating on it. That is at Llangollen. Therefore, in effect, it did what my hon. Friend suggested.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I did not quite get that.

Mr. Marples: I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks Welsh fluently. I referred to Llangollen, in North Wales. The Commission can therefore permissively allow boating. The Commission allows it at this place in North Wales and makes quite a sum of money from it.
Even my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich would agree that most of the canals we are considering have a very good case indeed. The question whether some of the others should be kept open is marginal. They have asked for this and have made considerable arrangements with the local authorities. The amenities of the surrounding areas will be enhanced in some cases when the canals are taken over. That is as far as I can pledge myself. We are often disappointed in this House when we produce proposals, but I thought that my proposals in the White Paper would be welcomed. I can see that they are welcomed, but I am afraid that one or two of my hon. Friends have reservations about them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden said that the canals could be used for other purposes, such as the supply of water. The Commission is using them in that way and has increased its income from that source.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) pointed out that the House supported the Bowes Committee in December, 1959. I call to the hon. Gentleman's attention the interim measure of policy which I have mentioned and which we are trying to follow. It is not as if this were the brutal closing by the Commission of canals like the Stratford-on-Avon Canal. These canals have been carefully vetted by the Advisory Committee and the Commission received a unanimous decision. I therefore feel that the Commission has done what the House asked it to do in the

interim White Paper, and I think that it it our duty to support it.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked me a question concerning the small sum of money received from fishing. Not all of the fees go to the Commission. They go to various riparian owners and others. The same applies to water. Some people have a statutory right to take a great deal of water at a very uneconomic and low cost. We shall have to look into this matter when we consider our statutory restrictions in the next Bill on railways.
I am certain that we listened to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central all the more carefully and gave his views added weight because he has paid £80 towards the Stratford-on-Avon Canal, which is an earnest of his good intentions. Therefore, like me, he has intentions which are honourable. I respect his views.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It was £180.

Dr. Stross: No.

Mr. Marples: The other £100 is to come later.
I am not sure which hon. Member said that some of the proposed closures at Birmingham were in last year's Bill. That is not quite right. These are all new proposals. Last year, some proposals were kept back until the Advisory Committee had surveyed and made its recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) asked for assurances that we would shelve the decision so that nothing would happen until the new body came in. That is a misconception, for two reasons. First, the Transport Commission has in this case paid greater attention to the wishes of the House by carefully vetting the canals than it has done before. It has carried out Parliament's wishes. When the Commission does that sort of thing, it should be supported.
Secondly, during the reorganisation of a business it would be wrong to terminate all the current activities. For example, we are now looking at the railway system to decide the size and shape of the system that the country should have and to make it efficient. While we are doing that, 'however, we cannot stop the current method of closing down


uneconomic branch lines after the procedure laid down by Parliament is followed. In other words, it is business as usual "until the new management arrives. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone will feel that what the Government have done in the White Paper for inland waterways is sufficient evidence that they have their welfare at heart.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone in thanking the Parham Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich is a member, for the great deal of work it has done. It has had a lot of survey work to do and a number of meetings. This is a subject which excites controversy and is time-consuming.
The hon. Member for Rotherham said that rather than have people going to pubs and causing mischief either to the Government or to his own party he would prefer them to proceed in a tranquil way on the canals. He then told how some Americans met him on a canal in a barge and afterwards they all went to the local pub. The hon. Member seems to be getting the best of both worlds. He went on a 'barge and then' into the local pub, whereas he told us that he would rather have people going on the canals than into the pubs.

Mrs. Slater: My hon. Friend is teetotal.

Mr. Marples: He paid for his round, hope, when he was with the Americans.
The hon. Member for Rotherham gave a characteristic graphic description of the joys of pushing a barge through a tunnel by what he called "legging" it, with his legs on the side of the wall and pushing the barge along. I should very much like to see the hon. Member doing that. If he gives me notice some time I will arrange to be present.

Dr. Stross: The legs are on the roof, not on the wall.

Mr. Marples: That makes me even keener to see the hon. Member.
I agree that we should give the fishermen a fair deal. When I take a walk on a Sunday, I frequently see them fishing. It is too tranquil for me. They sit clown all day by the Thames and the canals, and even in the winter they never move. They are hardy people muffled

up in overcoats. If we wanted to raise an expeditionary force for Siberia, the place to recruit it is on the Thames in December. I am not a keen fisherman, but I recognise that the fishermen have their rights.
Although I am the Minister of Transport, I am bound to say that with all these motor cars about, one thinks one is in bedlam. The hon. Member for Rotherham suggested that I cycled to get out of the traffic. I assure him that anybody who cycles in London gets into the traffic very quickly and knows more about diesel exhaust fumes than any car owner. It is getting a dangerous occupation.
I will not comment greatly on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich. He was in some difficulty and it would be inappropriate for me to comment, because he discussed the work of the Committee on which he served. I can only take the Committee's unanimous recommendation when it is sent to me. If the Committee submits a unanimous recommendation, I cannot reverse it and say that there is a minority report which must be taken into account.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has a great love of the country, which I share, and a love of boating that I do not at the moment share. When I say that I do not share it, I mean that I do not indulge in it. The right hon. Gentleman will, I think, give the Government credit for designing and building the new Staines bridge sufficiently high to allow boats of a reasonable class to pass underneath.
When I say that I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's pleasure in boating and yachting, I mean that I do not share it yet. From what I hear in my household, I shall have to do so shortly. My hobby, for which I am getting too old, is climbing the rocks, especially in the North of England, and my wife is trying to sell me the idea of yachting.
I hope that the House will feel that the Government and the Transport Commission have not been unreasonable in these proposals. We now have the new organisation coming along, divorced from the railways, which, I think, is right and proper. The B.T.C. has, at the request of Parliament, carried out the procedure


which we asked it to do by having a very careful independent committee surveying the canals which it wanted to close down. Under those circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friends will not divide the House and will allow the Bill to go through.

Mr. Atkins: In view of my right hon. Friend's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes. 94.

Division No. 81.
AYES
[9.3 p.m.


Awbery, Stan
Holman, Pony
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holt, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


Boyden, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Short, Edward


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hunter, A. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Stones, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Wade, Donald


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Warbey, William


Ede, At. Hon. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
King, Dr. Horace
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Forman, J. C.
McCann, John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


George,LadyMeganLloyd(C'rm'rth'n)
McKay, John (Wallsend)



Grimond, J.
Owen, Will
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mrs. Slater and Dr. Stross.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Barber, Anthony
Hill. Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bell, Ronald
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Basins, At. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Holland, Philip
Pott, Percival)


Blackburn, F.
Hollingsworth, John
Proctor, W. T.


Box, Donald
Hornby, R. P.
Quennell, miss J. M.


Brooman-White, R.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bullard, Denys
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ropner, Col. sir Leonard


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Channon, H. P. G.
Jackson, John
Steward, Harold (Stockport S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jeger, George
Studholme, Sir Henry


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Cleaver, Leonard
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Coulson, J. M.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Cunningham, Knox
Lilley, F. J. P.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Currie, G. B. H.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Tlley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. M.
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Duthie, Sir William
McLaren, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley R.
van Straubenzee. W. R.


Finlay, Graeme
Maddan, Martin
Vane, W. M. F.


Fisher, Nigel
Mapp, Charles
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Webster, David


Gammans, Lady
Marples, At. Hon. Ernest
Whitelaw, William


Gibson-Watt, David
Marshall, Douglas
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Ginsburg, David
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Mills, Stratton
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Gerald
Woodnutt, Mark


Gurden, Harold
Noble, Michael
Woollam, John


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)



Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pearson Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayman, F. H.
Peel, John
Mr. Wainwright and Mr. Costain.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE BILL

Postponed proceeding on Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, resumed.

Question again proposed.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams: When the debate was adjourned at seven o'clock so that the House could discuss the British Transport Commission Bill, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was dealing with the possible adoption of a five-year plan by the Postmaster-General and the administration as being a rational way of facing up to the problems and requirements of the future.
I mentioned, too, that I was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport in his place at that time. He has now disappeared, and after our recent debate I can quite understand why. What I had intended to say about the right hon. Gentleman was that when he was at the Post Office he said that neither the Post Office nor any other comparable business could possibly work on an annual investment of capital investment, and so on, and that a longer-term policy was needed if the Post Office was to succeed in its efforts to meet future problems and requirements.
I imagine that the present Postmaster-General is himself very keen on getting some order of this sort into the business. so that the administration can take a long-term view, not only in the interests of the Post Office, its administration and staff but in the interests of its associated firms which are assisting the Post Office in developing and making the equipment, the installations and the rest.
Those firms, too, are entitled to know exactly what the requirements of the Post Office may be for the next four or five years. It is not much use telling them that the Post Office will want so many thousands of telephones this year, perhaps half that number next year, and maybe double that number in the following year. They must have some forward knowledge so that they can work to a plan.
I shall not trespass on the rules of order by referring at any great length to the problems which, in my opinion, face the right hon. Gentleman and the administration, but some of my hon.

Friends have already referred to the need for a good deal of development. Every hon. Member has a list of people in his constituency who are waiting for telephones. They know that people are sharing lines, and we all know the problems associated with that sort of thing. The growth in the numbers of telephone subscribers here lags behind that in some other European countries, and I am sure that the Postmaster-General does not wish to be in that invidious position. I hope that in his assessment of capital requirements, and so forth, he will bear that in mind.
A word now about subscriber trunk dialling. From the information which has been put to me, I have myself great faith in the future of S.T.D. I believe that it is a money-spinner. It will be of great value to telephone-minded people and, from the point of view of the Post Office, I believe that it will be a winner. I cannot for the life of me understand why we should have to wait until 1970 for the scheme to be completed. We shall lose a great deal of money, and it will be quite uneconomic. We shall put ourselves in exactly the same position as the Minister of Transport is in regard to the electrification of the railway between Manchester, Liverpool and London. We have lost money hand over fist simply because we have not correlated our plans and had some continuity in our procedure.
I sincerely hope that the Postmaster-General will reconsider the date, 1970, with a view to having the thing completed as soon as possible in order to bring our internal system of trunk working to the top of the league in Europe, and, indeed, in advance of what is being done in America. I shall say nothing now about the cable laying, exchange equipment or electronic exchanges which will be required. Not very long ago, the Postmaster-General gave an interview to Electronics Weekly, the report of which, I thought, made excellent reading. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to develop along the lines he is advocating, he must ensure that he has available more capital than he has at present.
I turn for a moment or two to satellites. Although the Assistant Postmaster-General must be "fed up" with references to satellites by now, it is


a very important matter and the prospects are far more real than our recent debates have indicated. It is no use talking about the thing as if it were something in the dim and distant future, fifteen or twenty years ahead. The satellite programme is being actively considered. I was very interested to read, a few days ago, a report of comments made by Professor Sir Bernard Lovell, of Jodrell Bank, about a test message—the old message we used to send on the teleprinters about the Quick brown fox "and so on—which had been reflected from the moon and received in Washington. When we reach that stage, we are in the realm of immediately practical politics, and it is no use trying to evade the issue at all.
A large amount of capital will be required very soon, and, in spite of all that the Postmaster-General told us in Committee, we on this side are firmly convinced that a good deal of the money will have to be provided by the Post Office to meet immediate developments and research. We ought to be considering these things closely. If I may say (:), I should like the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend to read again some of the speeches made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who expounded these matters at length. I thought that there was a great deal of weight to be attached to what he said then.
Many of us on this side believe that the Post Office has been suffering for very long from what we now call, for want of a better description, the Thorneycroft philosophy of 1957. As I see it, the tragedy is that, even in 1959 and 1960, we are in just the same position in regard to capital investment as we were prior to the moment when the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) came out with his dictum. We do not regard this as good enough. As I said before, the firms which are developing most rapidly today in electricity, electronics and all the rest, the firms which are expanding and achieving something of value, are the very ones which are borrowing right up to the limit. If the Minister and the House of Commons are to compare the Post Office with the private sector of industry, the Department must be given the same

kind of facilities as are available elsewhere.
I come now to Clause 12. Above all things, with the changed accountability to Parliament which is envisaged in the Bill and with the new way of reporting to Parliament, what we on this side, and I believe, hon. Members opposite most desire is that the House will know what the problems are, what the achievements are and what the failures are, so that the House as a whole will be able in an intelligent way to examine the results at the end of the year when the Postmaster-General presents his report.
I do not press it further now, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to re-read what I said in Committee. I made five points. In my view, they are valid points. The House will be better informed on Post Office matters if the reports are presented in the form I suggested, and I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter seriously again.
There were two issues involved on Clause 13, liabilities and net assets. Both are important at the point of transfer, 31st March, 1961. The liabilities represent the burdens which will be placed on the Post Office. The assets will be the yardstick by which future achievement will be judged. I accept the assurances in regard to net assets which the right hon. Gentleman gave. I think that he has satisfied us, in regard to net assets, that he has had a reasonable, equitable, and fair bargain with the Treasury.
I still have grave doubts about liabilities. I am not at all sure that the right hon. Gentleman's reply on this point was as satisfactory as his reply on net assets. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) referred to a statement which the Postmaster-General made in Committee:
The first leg of the Amendment covers the question of surpluses handed to the Exchequer in the past. All I would say on that is that I could rewrite history in the Bill. Unfortunately, I cannot."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee F, 22nd February, 1961; c. 280.]
I do not ask the Postmaster-General to rewrite history. No one can do that. What I do ask him, in very simple terms, is to say to the Treasury, "We have given you a lot of money. We have handed over surpluses. At the same time


as we hand surpluses over to you, we have to borrow money for our own purposes "—

Mr. Houghton: The same money.

Mr. Williams: Yes, the same money —" We have to borrow it from you, and it is irrational and unreasonable that you should now tell us that, while we hand over surpluses, the liabilities must still be put on our shoulders. You should not tell us that it is a burden which we must carry not only in the capital sum but in the continuing rate of interest, some at the old rate of 41 per cent. and some at the new rate of 51 per cent. "It is unreasonable, and we urge that, between now and the time when the Bill passes through another place, a further effort should be made by the Postmaster-General.
I am sorry to have taken longer than some of my Friends and, perhaps, hon. Members opposite may have wished. While I have many reservations about the Bill, and I wish that the Postmaster-General had responded to the very helpful suggestions which we made and had conveyed our views firmly to the Treasury, I wish the Bill well in all its further stages.
I should like to say a word on the subject of incentives in connection with productivity. The staff will be civil servants. I am proud to think that they will remain civil servants. I should be very sorry indeed if this long, historic and honoured connection between the Post Office staff and the Civil Service had been broken. As one who has been connected directly and indirectly with the Civil Service since 1912, I would have felt is grievously.
However, we cannot throw on the Treasury the full obligation of paying Post Office staff in accordance with the new responsibilities that will be placed upon them in this new and highly scientific industry. I know that the Post Office workers and the Whitley Councils representing all grades in the Civil Service will co-operate with the Minister in the future as they have done in the past, but he himself must keep the lamp of faith burning for these people. They will not do it on words; there must be deeds as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has said that today, St. David's Day, is a good day for this Bill to go from this House. I agree that it is a great day. All I would say is that I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look to the future of the Post Office in the same way as my old patron saint looked from the darkness of his old days, with the bright eyes of faith looking forward to a bright, new, happy, prosperous and peaceful future. I wish the Bill luck.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: I rise primarily to express my appreciation to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have evinced an interest in this Bill throughout its various stages, and especially to those hon. Members who took part in our proceedings in Standing Committee. The detailed provisions of this Bill are not always easily comprehensible, but I do not think that that is as important as the fact that the Government and I are convinced that they are right.
I have no intention of pursuing hon. Members too closely along some of the byways that they have trodden this evening, partly because I have a respect for the rules of order and partly because do not wish to speak at undue length. But I should, as a matter of courtesy, like to touch upon one or two of the major questions which have been posed this evening.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr Houghton) and his hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) and for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) all expressed anxiety about the borrowing provisions in Clause 10. The figures in Clause 10 are not related to specified periods of time. This Bill makes no attempt of any kind to govern the level of Post Office capital investment in the years that lie ahead. Of course, I understand and sympathise with the apprehensions that have been expressed about the level of capital investment in the Post Office. It would be absurd if any hon. Member were to suggest that I, as Postmaster-General, am satisfied with the present level of our capital investment. I am not. No Postmaster-General worth his salt would be in the present circumstances. I ask the House to accept my word that I shall continue, as I have


tried to do, to secure the greatest possible volume of capital for the development in all its forms of the activities of the Post Office.
The hon. Member for Openshaw has been lecturing me, in a very kindly way, about the merits of a five-year plan. I am far more interested in doing things than talking about them, and I would rather not dwell upon that possibility on the occasion of this Third Reading speech. Several hon. Gentlemen have put detailed questions to me as to how we propose to spend our capital investment and how we should propose to spend it if we got more money. There have been references to kiosks, the development of subscriber trunk dialling and the general development of the telephone service. I am not at all sure that any of these questions are strictly relevant to the consideration of this Bill on Third Reading, but I can tell the House that whatever capital investment is at the disposal of the Post Office will be wisely spent in the years that lie ahead.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) in one of his rather more charming asides said—and I took down his words—"The right hon. Gentleman cannot prevent me from thinking". That is perfectly true, and I am tempted to add that I cannot prevent him from talking, nor, I hasten to add, would I wish to do so, but I did take very careful note of what he said, and indeed of what was said by other of his hon. Friends.
There were various references to the earning of 8 per cent. on net assets by the Post Office, and I confess that I have searched this Bill, and in particular Clause 6, very carefully but cannot find any reference whatever to this intention of earning 8 per cent. on assets. As I do not wish to transgress the rules of order, I do not propose to say anything about it.
The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) rose about two hours ago to ask me a series of questions. I waited in vain for ten minutes and at the end of that time I discovered, amongst a good deal of obscurities, one very vague question, which I can most courteously answer by sending the hon. Gentleman a copy of my Second Reading speech and the last accounts of the Post Office.

Mr. Houghton: I think, perhaps, it is only fair to remind the House that at that time my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) was getting into difficulties with the Chair, and perhaps decided that he could not go on with his questions.

Mr. Bevins: I appreciate that, but it was not my fault that the hon. Member was getting into difficulties with the Chair.
I believe that, on the whale, this Bill has stood up well to our debates. Its main provisions, I think I can say quite firmly, have 'been welcomed by both sides of the House, and I appreciate that the questions that have been raised have been raised not out of hostility to the Post Office but out of a desire to be helpful. I can only hope that the explanations which my hon. Friend and I have given at various stages have satisfied the House, because we 'have been at very great pains to get the Bill right. Let me add that the much maligned Treasury has also been most helpful and cooperative in the framing and drafting of this Bill.
I have never claimed, nor has any Government spokesman ever claimed, that this Bill of itself will revolutionise the operations of the Post Office overnight. The Bill does two things. First, it clears away the cobwebs of ancient practices, especially on the accountancy side, and, secondly, it gives us that sense of independence and responsibilty without which no one can be on his mettle. I am confident that this Bill will give the Post Office a real incentive to adapt itself to public demand and to show greater enterprise. If I were not satisfied that these things were so, I should never have introduced this Bill into the House.
A good deal has been said today about the possibility of the Post Office becoming too commercial in its approach and attitude, and the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) said something about that. I see no difficulty at all in putting more emphasis on the commercial character of the Post Office, and yet, at the same time —and I mean this sincerely—respecting our social obligations to various sections of the community. I am quite sure that Parliament, and indeed the Post Office and myself, will see to it that we honour


our social obligations. But what Parliament, in the very nature of things, cannot do is to influence and to shape the administrative mind of the Past Office. However modest the hon. Member for Sowerby may think I am, that is primarily my responsibility, and I shall discharge that responsibility to Parliament and to the public in this new regime not as a tycoon but as a servant of Parliament and of the public.
The Post Office, as has been rightly said this afternoon, is one of our oldest institutions—certainly the oldest of the State-owned industries in this country. The men and women who work for us are loyal and devoted people. They co-operate with the Post Office and with me in a considerable number of changes, reforms and innovations, and I am grateful to them. We have very great traditions. But this Bill is right, and it is right because it will help us to give the Post Office a new surge of vitality which cannot but be in the interests both of the staff of the Post Office and of the general public.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — EGGS (PROTECTION OF GUARANTEES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order, 1961 (S I, 1961, No, 90), dated 18th January 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.—[Mr. Vane.]

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I see from the Explanatory Note that this Order prohibits the sale for hatching or use for hatching of eggs which have been marked with an approved mark in accordance with Article 3 of the principal Order. For several years I have been a director of a fairly large cooperative egg packing station owned by a large number of very small producers of eggs, but until I saw this Order it never occurred to me that there was this possibility of abuse.
Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tell me what is the size of this abuse if it exists and what is the possibility of abuse? In other words, what sort of loophole is this Order designed to stop?

9.38 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) spoke about a possible abuse and of attempts which may have been made to obtain subsidy on eggs intended for hatching. To the best of our knowledge there has never been any widespread abuse, if any abuse at all. I do not think that it has occurred to the great majority of people who are concerned in this business that there is any possibility of obtaining subsidy on eggs used for hatching, because it has always been understood that the subsidy is not intended for eggs for hatching.
On the other hand, in the principal Order it has not been made so clear that it would necessarily stand up against all tests that it was an offence to claim subsidy on eggs afterwards used for hatching purposes. We therefore thought it better to be wise before rather than after the event, and I ask the House to accept this very simple Order, which introduces nothing new in the general administration of the control of egg subsidies and which is introduced with the approval of all the trade interests concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC LIBRARIANS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Alan Fitch: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity that you have given me to raise the problem of the shortage of qualified librarians in our public libraries. So much of our time is taken up, and rightly so, in discussing matters of great national and international importance that we are apt to forget those small groups of people who never hit the headlines, and who cannot form effective pressure groups, but whose work is becoming more important as we enter an age of increasing leisure with greater opportunities for reading. The librarians in public libraries are such a group.
More and more public libraries are having great difficulty in filling junior


professional posts with qualified staff, and some libraries have been obliged to fill vacancies with partially qualified people. In 1957, the percentage of posts graded as A.P.T.1, that is, Administrative, Professional and Technical, and A.P.T.2, occupied by unqualified staff, was 16. In 1959, it rose to 23, and by 1960 it had risen to 27. Many posts at this level have remained vacant, and at the end of 1960 there were 277 posts graded in A.P.T.1 and A.P.T.2 which were reported as vacant, in addition to 998 occupied by unqualified staff, out of a total number of 2,738 posts in these two grades, which is about 46 per cent.
This very disturbing situation led the Library Association, which is a professional body open to all librarians whether from public or non-public libraries, to ask for information from 484 public libraries about their turnover of qualified library staff since January, 1959. Of the 484 who were asked for information, 352 sent returns showing the number of junior qualified staff who had left the library service, either for employment in other types of libraries, or leaving the profession altogether.
A summary of the returns revealed that 47 per cent. of the qualified staff leaving were lost to the service altogether and that only 56 per cent. of the posts left vacant were filled by qualified librarians, 34 per cent. were filled by unqualified staff and 10 per cent. remained unfilled. The returns also showed that if there had not been a loss of 299 qualified librarians from the public library service to other types of library and other employment, the 218 new posts created during the same period of two years could have been filled by qualified staff, and the existing number of posts filled by unqualified staff could have been reduced.
Those are disturbing figures, and so are some of the figures relating to new entrants to the profession who joined the Library Association to become qualified librarians. Figures for the last five years reveal that approximately 800 new entrants each year were on the staffs of public libraries. Only one in three completes the registration examination and becomes a chartered librarian. A further analysis of over 700 members

who gave up their membership in 1959 revealed that two-thirds of them had been in membership for less than three years. Not a few libraries have had a complete change of junior staff in two years, and others have failed to keep any staff who were qualifying to the time when they could appoint them to professional posts.
That is a very unsatisfactory position, particularly in view of the recommendations of the Roberts Report, which suggested an increase of over 2,000 qualified librarians in the public library service to ensure an efficient service.
Shortage of manpower in industry can usually be attributed to either poor pay or to bad working conditions, or to both, but shortage of trained people in a particular profession is usually attributable to low salary and poor prospects, and I think that the shortage of qualified librarians in our public libraries is due to the poor salary paid.
The Roberts Report, which was presented to Parliament in February, 1959, recommended, in paragraphs 96 and 97, that the need for an increased salary should be brought to the notice of the appropriate joint negotiating bodies. The Committee was very definite about it. I quote from paragraph 97 of the Report:
It would not be appropriate for us to recommend particular salary scales for qualified librarians, since negotiating machinery already exists for this purpose. We feel bound. however, to emphasise the importance of having library staff who are sufficient in number and suitable in quality to discharge their responsibilities effectively. To achieve this, adequate salary scales are necessary, and employing authorities should operate these in a manner calculated to provide attractive careers for librarians. We hope that our views on this subject will be brought to the notice of the appropriate joint negotiating bodies.
In March, 1960, I asked the Minister of Education
if his attention had been drawn to paragraph 96 of the Roberts Report: and what proposals he has to make
His reply was:
Yes, Sir, but, as the Roberts Committee recognised, negotiating machinery exists for determining the salaries of qualified librarians, and I have no doubt that paragraph 96 has been noted by those concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th March. 1960; Vol. 260, c. 656.]
In December of last year, I asked a similar Question and received a very helpful reply from the Minister:
Since the hon. Member raised this question previously, I have entered into discussions with


the local authorities about the future of the library service in the light of the Government's decision to introduce legislation and further studies are envisaged. The provision of adequate and properly qualified staff is of great importance in the running of an efficient service and I know that the local authorities are fully aware of the comments of the Roberts Report on this matter."—40FFicIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1960 Vol. 631, c. 570.]
In spite of the Minister's sympathetic reply, no improvements have been made in the salary scale for libraries since the publication of the Roberts Report. A claim for an improved salary scale has been before the appropriate joint negotiating committee for many months. Are the employers ignoring the recommendations of the Committee? One gathers from the Written Answer to a Question on this subject from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) that the Government agree in principle with the proposal of the Roberts Committee that the Minister of Education should assume a general responsibility for the oversight of the public library service.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary bring to the notice of his right hon. Friend the fact that the employers' side of the joint negotiating body seems to be completely ignoring the recommendations of the Roberts Committee? Of course, it may not know what is the view of the Minister. It may take the view that the Minister has not given it his official blessing. A lead from the Minister at this time would do a great deal of good. It is reasonable to assume that staffing difficulties are due to low salaries because there is no evidence that this unsatisfactory situation exists in other types of libraries. Apart from occasional vacancies their staffs are always up to full establishment.
A glance at the salary scales reveals the reason. For example, the lowest professional grade for qualified librarians in the Civil Service rises to a maximum of £1,154 a year, while the lowest grades in the public library service rises to a maximum of £815 a year. The maximum in the second grade is £960, which is still below the maximum for the lowest grade in the Civil Service. University libraries and professional and technical institutions, in fact 75 per cent. of the posts for qualified staff, carry a maximum salary of £960 a year. It is no wonder that qualified librarians leave the public library service which offers a

maximum of £960 to go to posts of similar responsibility and grading where the maximum salary is £1,154.
Closely linked with the question of salaries is the question of prospects. The Roberts Report recommended an improvement in the career prospects of the public library service. I hope that without being tedious I may quote from paragraph 103 of the Report. It says:
salary scales for the staff of public libraries should be commensurate with their qualifications and responsibilities, and should be applied in a manner calculated to make career prospects attractive; and … this recommendation should be brought to the notice of the appropriate joint negotiating bodies.
There is a feeling among librarians that employers are opposed to making any change in the grading of staff as recommended by the Roberts Report. Liaison, the news sheet of the Library Association says:
It is no secret that they "—
that is, the employers—
are unimpressed by the recommendations of the Roberts Committee.
What reasons have the librarians for thinking this? Immediately following publication of the Roberts Report, the Library Association asked N.A.L.G.O. to reopen negotiations with the employers to obtain a better grading system which would give effect to the Roberts Committee recommendations on career prospects and appropriate salaries. Certain proposals were agreed upon by the staff side of the National Joint Council in January, 1960. That is thirteen months ago. It submitted proposals to the employers' side in April, 1960. Consideration of these proposals was deferred pending the settlement of a general pay claim for all local government officers. That settlement was received in September and discussions on the proposals were resumed in October, 1960. The employers' side made no offer and that is the position today. The prospects of an early settlement appear very bleak indeed.
The position of chief librarians is no better than that of their subordinates. For over twelve years the Society of Municipal and County Chief Librarians, that is, the chief librarians' trade union, has tried to obtain recognition of municipal chief librarians as a category of chief official for whom it would be both


practicable and desirable to have uniform salary scales. To date, it has submitted five claims. The first was submitted on 18th October, 1952, based on the population served. That was rejected.
On 26th June, 1956, the second claim was submitted for a uniform salary, this time based on a percentage of the salaries of designated chief officers. That was rejected. On 15th October, 1956, a third claim was submitted, based on total expenditure on the library service, but the officers' side was not agreeable to that. On 5th July, 1957, a fourth claim was submitted, based on staff control. That was rejected by the employers' side. Following the recommendations of the Roberts Committee, a fifth claim was submitted on 10th November, 1959, based on a points system. That was rejected on 30th June, 1960.
What patience these librarians have had! If they had been members of my union, the National Union of Mineworkers, it is inconceivable that they would have waited twelve years for the settlement of a claim. I am pleased to say that I am a member of the Libraries Committee of Wigan County Borough Council. We have had the same difficulties and been unable to get the necessary number of qualified staff after months of advertising.
What is required to become a chartered librarian? To the average member of the public, who only sees someone handing out and receiving books, it seems to be a fairly easy job. It is one of the peculiarities of human nature to imagine that another person's job is easy money, but that idea persists only until by chance one has to do that job oneself. What are the qualifications required to become a chartered librarian?
Intending librarians must have the G.C.E. at Ordinary level in five subjects, including one foreign language. They must pass the examination of the Library Association, which consists of four groups covering a wide field such as cataloguing and classifying, organisation and administration, assistance to readers and one examination on literature of a special subject. They must have three years'

approved library service and they cannot be recognised as librarians at associate level under the age of 23. They are fairly stiff qualifications for salaries of under £1,000 a year.
I have raised this question because I believe that librarians in public libraries are having a raw deal. They are asking only to be treated like their professional contemporaries in local government service.

9.55 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I am sure that we are grateful and obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) for having raised this subject tonight. He has been extremely pertinacious about this matter. He asked Questions in March and December last year and although, as he said, the Minister made quite amiable replies, we had nothing very much out of either of the two answers. I am hoping that tonight we shall have something more substantial from the Parliamentary Secretary.
The story, which has been given us in greater detail than previously is, I think everyone will agree, quite horrifying. I speak with great feeling in this matter because, many years ago, I was a librarian myself. I was not in the public library service of this country, but I served the greater part of one year in a very fine public library, of New York City. When one compares the relative status of librarians in the United States, and the conditions of service, pay and amenities provided for them, with the very shabby treatment which is the normal lot of persons in the public library service of this country, I think that we should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves.
I have felt for many years that we have had a tradition in this country of taking our librarians in the public library service for granted. They are people who give devoted service to the public and are not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan has rightly said, very combative by nature. They are more studiously inclined, perhaps. That makes it all the more unnecessary that the public should recognise that if we are to have an adequate library service we must provide reasonable conditions.
The occasion of the Roberts Committee's Report, which is now two years old, was surely one which should have


brought this matter home to the people concerned. I must say that I am deeply disappointed to learn that the employing authorities have apparently been exceedingly reluctant to come to a proper conclusion in this matter. The whole history of this business is lamentable. As long ago as 1927 the Kenyon Committee made recommendations concerning the conditions of librarians which have not been observed. They made recommendations for parity with the teaching profession. Teachers are not very well off at the moment, but librarians are worse off.
There is also the question of opportunities. It is not only the basic salary, inadequate as it is, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan pointed out. it is also a question of giving opportunities both of rising in the general administration and, for those who have special qualifications, recognition of their qualifications as specialist librarians—reference librarians and children's librarians, for example, They do an extremely important educational job.
I had occasion, not so long ago, to pay a modest tribute in The Times to Miss Anne Carroll Moore, the great children's librarian of the New York Public Library, who died recently. She was very well known indeed to librarians all over the world. Children's librarians have a tremendous responsibility in cultivating the taste for reading among young children. They, too, should have this responsibility properly recognised in the normal way, namely, by adequate pay and good conditions.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Mrs. White: I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us more than we have heard hitherto.
My hon. Friend gave the results of the inquiries made by the Library Association into the turnover of staff. I wonder whether the Ministry has made any other investigation of its own. This matter was raised in March and December last year, and we understood that the Minister was asking his Department to look into it. I wonder whether there are any figures in addition to those which the Library Asso-

ciation has been able to produce, though we hardly need supplementary figures because the ones which we already have are horrifying enough.
I should like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can say anything about the training arrangements for librarians. These are mentioned in the Roberts Report, and I have one matter of particular concern to me which I should like to mention. As it is St. David's Day, it is most appropriate that I should do so. It concerns the reference in the Roberts Report to the lack of training for librarians in Wales. It is suggested in paragraph 112 of the Report that
Consideration should therefore be given to the establishment of a school of librarianship where full-time courses can be provided and to the problems of training bilingual librarians.
in the Principality. Obviously, this is of extreme importance to us in Wales where some librarians often have a double job to do. They have to deal with English-speaking readers and with those who wish to be served with Welsh books or Welsh periodicals. I should very much like to know whether any arrangements have been made as a result of the recommendation in the paragraph to which I have referred.
Although it is not the subject of this debate, as we have rather more time than we sometimes have, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some idea of how the more general inquiries are proceeding. In one of our major debates on education on 7th November, the Minister of Education almost went out of his way to refer to the position in libraries. He said that studies were being undertaken with a view to legislation. He mentioned that for the full operation of any legislation which might come about one would have to wait for the local government boundaries to be determined. I hope that the stress was on "full operation", because there are many things which should be encouraged now and which should be started at the earliest possible moment without necessarily waiting for the boundary problems to be solved. If we have to wait for that, it may be many years before we have the improvements in the library service which the Roberts Committee recommended.
Although we cannot go very far tonight, I think that it would be interesting for those concerned about the prospects for the libraries of the country if the Parliamentary Secretary could at least tell us what progress is being made in the more general studies into the library position and if we can hope to have the necessary legislation next Session.
I want to leave the Parliamentary Secretary ample time in which to deal with the matters which have been raised. Therefore, I will not do what I should otherwise have liked to do, namely, discuss the position in Wales at greater length. In the chapter in the Report devoted to the position in Wales, some of our peculiar difficulties are emphasised. We have a large number of very small library authorities whose expenditure on books is so far below what is recommended by the Roberts Committee that one cannot help but feel that some people in Wales must be having a very poor service indeed. I do not blame those authorities. Some of them are far too small and simply do not have the resources. There are interesting suggestions in the chapter for the possible combination of services, and so on.
Unless action is taken fairly soon, it will be very much to the detriment of the Principality and particularly of those readers, English and Welsh, in the areas which, it is clear from the Report, cannot be having the proper supply of books and periodicals to which they are entitled. I hope that we shall have specific replies to the questions raised by my hon. Friend and a little general enlightenment as to what the Government will do about the main problems.

10.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I join with the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. Eirene White) in congratulating the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) in choosing to take the opportunity to bring forward this matter, which we recognise to be of considerable importance. The hon. Member will find as I go along that I am having Obvious difficulty in replying to one of his questions with answers that have even the appearance of being helpful. I hope, however, that what I say will explain how that comes about.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the hon. Lady that the general import and the main recommendations of the Roberts Committee have earned wide support among all who have considered the future organisation of the public libraries. The idea that the libraries should maintain high standards of efficiency, centrally established and broadly supervised by the Government, is in itself a new one. It recognises the importance of the services that the libraries give. In an age which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is characterised by increasing leisure side by side with universal systems of mass entertainment, the growth of the habit of book borrowing and reading is one of the more satisfactory features of our modern life.
The Government believe, as, I think, the library authorities believe, that this habit can grow, and grow more rapidly, the more the libraries set themselves high standards of service. Most people would agree that to a large extent those high standards will depend upon the qualities of the librarians who staff the libraries. The steady growth in the use of the libraries the easy familiarity with which the public, from the youngest child to the oldest pensioner, makes use of them is evidence of the skill with which many librarians have knit their establishments into the social life of the area they serve.
It may well be that this growth could have been more rapid and more widespread had there been more and better qualified librarians. It may be that there would have been more staff if the salary rates had been higher. It may be that the library authorities have been remiss in not anticipating and meeting these alleged shortcomings. I really do not know.
It would be quite wrong to assume from anything that the hon. Gentleman has said about the library service generally, or what the hon. Lady said about the library service in Wales, that the public libraries are falling into desuetude and decay. Public demand seems to proclaim quite the contrary. The Society of Authors protests, not about the failure of the libraries, but that their growing popularity damages their other financial interests.
In these circumstances—to some extent this answers the hon. Lady's remarks about the Government's response to the


recommendations of the Roberts Committee—I am sure that we are right to take whatever time is necessary to prepare well-conceived proposals arising from those recommendations to put before the House for its consideration. I need hardly remind the House that in a matter like this, "well conceived" in this context means not only good in themselves, but capable of attracting the support and good will of the local authorities, the librarians and, not least, the general public, whose favourable judgment on our work will be the true measure of our success.
My right hon. Friend informed the House on 15th December last that, arising from the recommendations of the Roberts Committee, it was the Government's intention that the Minister of Education should have a general responsibility for the oversight of the public library service. He indicated that, after certain preliminary work had been completed, legislation would be laid before the House. I am happy to inform the hon. Lady that that preparation is going on very actively at present. I regret that I am not able to say when the proposed legislation will be ready or when the Parliamentary timetable will be able to accommodate it. The Parliamentary time-table is sometimes subject to interruptions of one kind or another.
This preparation has involved my right hon. Friend in very wide consultations. A broad measure of agreement now exists on many of the problems, but some matters require further study from a technical point of view, as my right hon. Friend has already indicated to the House. At the same time, we have to take account of the work of the Local Government Commissions. Their proposals may have very far-reaching effects indeed on the future organisation of the public libraries as well as on other local government services, and I am sure that it would be quite wrong for the House to decide upon a pattern of organisation for the library service which failed to fit into, or was in conflict with, the general pattern of local authority services.
In short, while considering the recommendations of the Roberts Committee, we must bear in mind the possible recommendations of the Local Government Commissions.
Whatever new duties may be laid by the House on my right hon. Friend, the library service will continue in the future, as it is now, to be an essentially local authority service. I am quite sure that the House would not wish it otherwise. The service originated as the result of local initiative and is supported entirely from local rate revenue. It is managed and controlled locally, and it is responsible to local opinion as to the standards of service to be achieved. Its growth has been the result of local demand. Neither my right hon. Friend nor any other Government Minister has any responsibility or duty to intervene. I think that the House would want Ministerial intervention at any time in the future to be limited to the minimum consistent with ensuring standards that are uniformly high.
As we have been reminded this evening, the Roberts Committee expressed the opinion, among other things, that the high standards to be sought would require high standards of staffing both in numbers and in quality. We accept that. Although there has been some increase in the total numbers of staff employed since the Committee reported, it is true that there is still a considerable shortage. From the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given the House, this fact seems to stem mainly from the wastage which takes place rather than from a failure to recruit.
A good deal of this wastage is due to young women leaving the service to marry or look after their families. I doubt whether we can do much about this. We attract into the work a nice type of girl and she attracts a nice young man and they go off together. Neither bribery nor blandishments can prevail against bliss. We are very familiar with this phenomenon in the teaching profession. I have no doubt that a pattern will emerge here as it is emerging in the teaching profession of the domestic episode representing a break in service rather than the end of it. There is a good deal that employing authorities can do to encourage this.
Our experience with teachers shows that there are many married women who qualify before marriage and who find as their families grow up that the intellectual dustbowl of the kitchen leaves them less than satisfied. They


can give valuable service which will enrich their own lives and be of help to others. Of course, it will not be always easy to fit their service into the schedules of hours that a public library must keep, but industry and the professions are finding more and more that the special efforts needed to make use of the latent talents of all kinds of married women returners—if I may use the trade jargon—are handsomely rewarded.
Some of the wastage is the result of trained staff leaving public libraries after qualifying to take up appointments in other libraries, in industries, colleges and universities. Although this is highly inconvenient and upsetting to the losing libraries, I hope that it will be seen as a process not without some real value to the system as a whole. It cannot be other than advantageous to the development of a uniform and integrated lending library service. If the broader long-term objectives of the Roberts recommendations are to be achieved, these librarians trained in the public library service will be invaluable in making the resources of non-public libraries better-known and more widely used.
Inter-library co-operation of this kind is a fundamental feature of the pattern which we hope to see emerge. Indeed, a whole chapter of the Roberts Report is devoted to discussing library cooperation. There is already a great deal of this co-operation between public libraries, and I expect that there will be more. The numbers of non-public libraries, particularly the specialist libraries, are growing considerably, as is the extent of their specialised collections.
The hon. Lady and the hon. Member dwelt on the part played by salary scales in attracting and holding on to staff. I think that they will know that there is little I can say on this aspect of the matter. Librarians are the servants of the authorities that employ them and salaries and conditions of service must be negotiated between them. My right hon. Friend has neither the power nor the duty to intervene.
I do not know what responsibilities the House may decide to allocate to my right hon. Friend in the future. For the present, paragraphs 96 and 97 of the Report stand as the best guidance for

those upon whom the responsibility now rests. I can do no more than refer to what my right hon. Friend said on this matter on an earlier occasion. I am sure that the House endorses the view that it would be quite wrong for him to intervene to prod either side in negotiations which may or may not be pending at present.

Mr. Fitch: Employers are suggesting that because the Minister has not pronounced on this subject at all they are not prepared to take any action. While the Minister may not have direct responsibility he can at least use his influence. He can make his position very clear and I am sure that notice would then be taken of his words.

Mr. Thompson: I am glad that it is recognised how great and widespread is my right hon. Friend's influence, but it would be highly improper for him to intervene in any way in negotiations of this kind. He can do no more than he has done up to the moment. I should be surprised indeed—and I confess to having no direct knowledge of the point as put by the hon. Member—if employing authorities were deliberately sheltering behind the absence of a ministerial edict, which ought not to be there anyway, in order to delay negotiations.

Mrs. White: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that he is in a rather delicate situation in this matter, but could he not at least go as far as to make plain that these negotiations should not be in any way delayed or dragged out because the Minister is not able to take steps for some major reorganisation of the library service? It might possibly be argued that because the Minister is not ready yet with his proposals for reorganisation this whole matter of salaries and conditions might be put in cold storage. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could make it clear that that is not at all necessary.

Mr. Thompson: I can do no more than say that my right hon. Friend's position has not been altered one iota by the publication of the Roberts Committee Report, and his position cannot and will not be altered until this House chooses to alter it, and then only to the extent that the House chooses to alter it.
I repeat that I can give no forecast of the date on which the House will be


invited to consider legislation on the subject. When that time comes, I imagine that the House will be asked to accept definitions of standards of efficiency and service. Among the factors affecting efficiency and service will be staffing standards, staffing pay and staffing prospects. Those are factors which I have no doubt all concerned with the service have had regard to in the past, and now have and must in the future have regard to—

Mrs. White: I fully appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I know that he wants to be helpful, and I suggest that he might be able to make quite clear what I think should be clear already; that because this possible reorganisation Which is coming at some time in the future cannot yet be disposed of, that is no reason for holding up negotiations in which, I fully agree, the Minister has no part. I only try to suggest that it should be made very clear that the Minister cannot give the date for this legislation as yet, and that there is, therefore, all the more reason why there should be no delay in current negotiations under present conditions because at some future time the conditions may be altered.

Mr. Thompson: I know that the hon. Lady is not trying to trap me into an embarrassing position, but I think that she will see that if I followed her advice I would be making the assumption that that is What the library associations are now doing, and there is no evidence to show that that is so. The dates given by the hon. Member support the view that a long time has passed between the beginning of the exercise and today's date. I cannot read into that any motives nor, I think, would the House wish me to do so. I can only repeat that I cannot give any date on which this House may be asked to consider legislation. If that is a factor that the negotiators on either side have in mind they should bear in mind my statement in deciding their next step.
If the House should at some future time decide that my right hon. Friend should have the responsibility for a general oversight of the service he will no doubt have to consider, among many other things, the whole question of the supply and training of librarians. Although he has not yet completed his

consideration of the recommendations he will wish to put before the House, I can say that, subject to anything that may emerge from the consultations still going on with interested parties, he will give consideration to the proposition that this matter should be studied by the advisory bodies to which the Roberts Committee referred in paragraph 43 of its Report.
I take this opportunity of answering the specific Welsh points which the hon. Lady, aglow with national pride and daffodils, put before the House. There are special problems presented both by the national aspects in Wales and by the questions of geography to which the hon. Lady drew specific attention. It would be my right hon. Friend's intention, as things are, to have an advisory body with duties relating specifically to Wales. I have no doubt that that body would take into account the very points referred to in paragraphs 110, 111 and 112 of the Report, which were the basis of what the hon. Lady said. We recognise that the problems of Wales are different in many ways, from those in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The standard of service achieved by a public lending library is a compound of many factors. Not least among them is the quality of the men and women who staff the service. It is in the best interests of all that the service should attract high-quality candidates, and that salaries and conditions and career prospects should contribute to this attraction.

Mr. Fitch: The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to imply that a considerable number of attractive young ladies in the public library service met equally attractive young men, and that that was the cause of wastage. That, however, would apply to any kind of library—technical, professional or university—but apparently we do not get that in that type of library—only in the public library.

Mr. Thompson: I have no statistics, but I would be very surprised if a young lady was less attractive in a university library than in a public lending library. My experience of all kinds of the same institution is that the young ladies have the same appeal, and that the same fate awaits the attractive young man when he gets there. The probability is that into those other libraries in universities, and


certain types of research and specialist organisations, there may be attracted an older, less attractive—less immediately attractive—person. If that is so, the statistics would fail to throw up the kind of phenomenon to which I referred

earlier, but I am pretty confident that the boy-meets-girl complex is the same in all kinds of library.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past ten o'clock